Epic v. Apple ruling blocks Apple from banning links to alternative payments

But the company's anti-steering provisions are deemed illegal, judge says.

An image of the Fortnite app icon on iOS.

Apple may have to change its rules around controlling how developers communicate with customers.

Photo: Getty Images

The Epic v. Apple lawsuit has concluded. The verdict sees Apple come out largely unscathed — but with one of its central App Store policies deemed illegal.

In a decision filed Friday morning, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled Epic Games failed to prove Apple holds an illegal monopoly over its app ecosystem, but that its so-called anti-steering provisions — its rules preventing developers from directing customers outside the App Store — are anticompetitive and must be changed. The ruling marks an end to a high-profile legal battle that started more than a year ago and has become one of the most explosive and consequential technology antitrust cases in recent memory.

Gonzalez Rogers, of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, issued her verdict after more than three months of deliberation following a month-long trial that took place in Oakland this past May.

"Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any person in active concert or participation with them ("Apple"), are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app," the ruling reads.

Gonzalez Rogers said in her decision that both Epic and Apple had failed to determine the relevant market — a key first step in competition cases. The case should be focused on the market for transactions in mobile games, she reasoned, a $100 billion industry that accounts for the majority of the App Store revenue.

Because neither side offered enough evidence about that specific market, such as barriers to entry or the alleged effect of Apple's "considerable market share," Gonzalez Rogers said she couldn't actually make a call whether the company's control of the App Store made it an illegal monopolist. "Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws," she wrote.

Nonetheless, Gonzalez Rogers concluded, Apple's steering rules — which she repeatedly criticized during the trial — were a problem and should be blocked. "Apple's anti-steering provisions hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice," she wrote. "When coupled with Apple's incipient antitrust violations, these anti-steering provisions are anticompetitive and a nationwide remedy to eliminate those provisions is warranted."

Apple issued a statement expressing overall satisfaction with the ruling, though the company has not yet said if it will appeal.

"Today the Court has affirmed what we've known all along: the App Store is not in violation of antitrust law. As the Court recognized 'success is not illegal.' Apple faces rigorous competition in every segment in which we do business, and we believe customers and developers choose us because our products and services are the best in the world," the company told Protocol. "We remain committed to ensuring the App Store is a safe and trusted marketplace that supports a thriving developer community and more than 2.1 million U.S. jobs, and where the rules apply equally to everyone."

Epic CEO Tim Sweeney was less satisfied. "Today's ruling isn't a win for developers or for consumers," he said in a series of tweets. "Epic is fighting for fair competition among in-app payment methods and app stores for a billion consumers."

Fortnite is staying off iOS for now, Sweeney added, saying the game "will return to the iOS App Store when and where Epic can offer in-app payment in fair competition with Apple in-app payment, passing along the savings to consumers. ... We will fight on."

"Primarily a game store"

Knocking down Apple's anti-steering provisions could have a large effect on the overall App Store economy. Gonzalez Rogers noted that a majority of the App Store's revenue comes from games: in 2016, 81% of all billings were for mobile game transactions, while in 2017, 76% of all App Store revenue came from gaming. Nor is the spending evenly spread: Just 6% of people who spent any money on games in 2017 accounted for a massive 88% of all game billings that year.

"Indeed, in strategizing on the development of the App Store and Apple's gaming business, Apple noted that it 'need[s] to primarily consider how [its] service[s] would impact engagement and spend of this 6%,'" the judge wrote. "Thus, in most economic ways, and in particular with respect to the challenged conduct, the App Store is primarily a game store and secondarily an 'every other' app store."

It was never likely that all of Epic's demands, which included the option to install its own app store on the iOS platform in addition to bypassing Apple's 30% commission on digital purchases, would be granted. The final verdict does, however, offer a compromise that should open the door for Epic to direct Fortnite players from inside the app to cheaper in-game currency options on the web. In a broader sense, the ruling also threatens the lucrative mobile game market from which Apple profits handsomely: If every game maker begins directing users to alternative payment options, it could significantly affect the App Store's bottom line.

Epic kicked off the dispute when it updated the Fortnite iOS app in August of last year to include its own in-app payment system, bypassing Apple's and skirting the 30% commission requirement of all digital purchases on iOS. After Apple removed the app for violating its policies around in-app payments, Epic retaliated with a prepared antitrust lawsuit. Epic also updated the Android version of Fortnite to include its own payment option, and the company sued Google on similar grounds when the Android version was removed. The Google lawsuit has yet to go to trial.

The trial was notable for including testimony from some of the most powerful and longest-serving executives at Apple, including former marketing chief Phil Schiller and CEO Tim Cook. It involved exhaustive histories of the iPhone's creation and the rise of the mobile app economy, while also delving deep into the decision making that went into creating the App Store and Apple's many strategic decisions designed to protect it over the years as it grew into the massive and lucrative backbone of Apple's services business.

On Epic's side, the trial brought out CEO Tim Sweeney to testify and also inadvertently revealed some of the game industry's most closely held secrets through discovery and messy document dumps. Those included the financial terms of fiercely guarded exclusivity deals, the profitability of the console business and Microsoft's Xbox division in particular, just how successful Fortnite has been and to what degree Sony's PlayStation platform reaped the benefits of its leading market position. Scores of sensitive emails and documents also revealed the extent to which Epic carefully calculated its plan to subvert Apple and Google's mobile app store policies with legal challenges and a coordinated public relations assault.

Beyond Epic

In the months since the trial concluded, Apple has faced intensifying antitrust pressure worldwide that has resulted in stunning reversals of longtime App Store policies. In August, the company settled a class action lawsuit with U.S.-based developers, which was also before Gonzalez Rogers, by pledging to set up a $100 million fund for small app-makers. As part of the settlement, the company also agreed to clarify its anti-steering policies around advertising alternative payment options that bypass its App Store commission.

The concessions only applied to communications outside the app and modified policies that already had loopholes, and as such were relatively minor. Apple came out largely unscathed and without having to make major changes to its business model.

Just a week after that settlement was announced, however, South Korea passed a landmark law forbidding Apple and Google from requiring the use of their respective payment systems on iOS and Android, opening the door for alternative options not only to be advertised within mobile apps, but also fully integrated into them. Days later, Apple agreed as part of a settlement with Japanese regulators to further loosen its anti-steering developer rules and allow "reader" apps, such as those developed by Netflix and Spotify, to include links to outside websites so users can sign up online. The App Store model has also been under attack in several state legislatures, and in a bipartisan bill in the Senate.

The anti-steering provisions built into the App Store became one of the central contentions in the Epic v. Apple trial, with Gonzalez Rogers grilling Apple executives over the restrictions around advertising cheaper products and services and what logic the company used to justify forbidding the practice. "It would be akin to Apple down at Best Buy saying, 'Best Buy, put in a sign there where we are advertising that you can go across the street and get an iPhone,'" Apple CEO Tim Cook said on the stand.

Cook and other Apple witnesses portrayed the App Store as a secure, well curated environment that attracts the customers who build digital businesses — and said the store requires the money it extracts from fees for upkeep. However, Gonzalez Rogers routinely expressed skepticism of Apple's defenses of anti-steering, indicating her eventual verdict would involve a narrow ruling striking a compromise for both sides.

"What is the problem with allowing users to have choice, especially in a gaming context, to find a cheaper option for content?" Gonzalez Rogers asked Cook on the final day of testimony in May. "I understand this notion that somehow Apple's bringing the customers to the users. But after that first time, after that first interaction, the [developers] are keeping the customer with the games. Apple's just profiting off that, it seems to me."

Gonzalez Rogers' line of questioning struck at the heart of the Fortnite dispute, revealing how Cook and Apple at large view the company's relationship with developers and underscoring how much control Apple feels it is justified in exerting over commerce on the iOS platform.

"It doesn't seem to me you feel any pressure or competition to actually change the manner in which you act to address the concerns of the developers," she concluded at the time, noting that Apple has only improved its treatment of developers when under legal or regulatory pressure.

Ultimately, Gonzalez Rogers found, "Epic Games overreached, as the Court does not find that Apple is an antitrust monopolist in the submarket for mobile gaming transactions." Still, Apple's "anticompetitive" enforcement of anti-steering restrictions does have to go, she ruled, trying to thread the needle without drastically shaping up the status quo. "This measured remedy will increase competition, increase transparency, increase consumer choice and information while preserving Apple's iOS ecosystem," she concluded.

It's what happens now — whether game developers en masse direct customers outside the App Store, and whether Apple fights on appeal to prevent that — that will determine just how far-reaching the ruling is.


A pro-China disinformation campaign is targeting rare earth miners

It’s uncommon for cyber criminals to target private industry. But a new operation has cast doubt on miners looking to gain a foothold in the West in an apparent attempt to protect China’s upper hand in a market that has become increasingly vital.

It is very uncommon for coordinated disinformation operations to target private industry, rather than governments or civil society, a cybersecurity expert says.

Photo: Goh Seng Chong/Bloomberg via Getty Images

Just when we thought the renewable energy supply chains couldn’t get more fraught, a sophisticated disinformation campaign has taken to social media to further complicate things.

Known as Dragonbridge, the campaign has existed for at least three years, but in the last few months it has shifted its focus to target several mining companies “with negative messaging in response to potential or planned rare earths production activities.” It was initially uncovered by cybersecurity firm Mandiant and peddles narratives in the Chinese interest via its network of thousands of fake social media accounts.

Keep Reading Show less
Lisa Martine Jenkins

Lisa Martine Jenkins is a senior reporter at Protocol covering climate. Lisa previously wrote for Morning Consult, Chemical Watch and the Associated Press. Lisa is currently based in Brooklyn, and is originally from the Bay Area. Find her on Twitter ( @l_m_j_) or reach out via email (ljenkins@protocol.com).

Some of the most astounding tech-enabled advances of the next decade, from cutting-edge medical research to urban traffic control and factory floor optimization, will be enabled by a device often smaller than a thumbnail: the memory chip.

While vast amounts of data are created, stored and processed every moment — by some estimates, 2.5 quintillion bytes daily — the insights in that code are unlocked by the memory chips that hold it and transfer it. “Memory will propel the next 10 years into the most transformative years in human history,” said Sanjay Mehrotra, president and CEO of Micron Technology.

Keep Reading Show less
James Daly
James Daly has a deep knowledge of creating brand voice identity, including understanding various audiences and targeting messaging accordingly. He enjoys commissioning, editing, writing, and business development, particularly in launching new ventures and building passionate audiences. Daly has led teams large and small to multiple awards and quantifiable success through a strategy built on teamwork, passion, fact-checking, intelligence, analytics, and audience growth while meeting budget goals and production deadlines in fast-paced environments. Daly is the Editorial Director of 2030 Media and a contributor at Wired.

Ripple’s CEO threatens to leave the US if it loses SEC case

CEO Brad Garlinghouse said a few countries have reached out to Ripple about relocating.

"There's no doubt that if the SEC doesn't win their case against us that that is good for crypto in the United States,” Brad Garlinghouse told Protocol.

Photo: Stephen McCarthy/Sportsfile for Collision via Getty Images

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse said the crypto company will move to another country if it loses in its legal battle with the SEC.

Garlinghouse said he’s confident that Ripple will prevail against the federal regulator, which accused the company of failing to register roughly $1.4 billion in XRP tokens as securities.

Keep Reading Show less
Benjamin Pimentel

Benjamin Pimentel ( @benpimentel) covers crypto and fintech from San Francisco. He has reported on many of the biggest tech stories over the past 20 years for the San Francisco Chronicle, Dow Jones MarketWatch and Business Insider, from the dot-com crash, the rise of cloud computing, social networking and AI to the impact of the Great Recession and the COVID crisis on Silicon Valley and beyond. He can be reached at bpimentel@protocol.com or via Google Voice at (925) 307-9342.


The Supreme Court’s EPA ruling is bad news for tech regulation, too

The justices just gave themselves a lot of discretion to smack down agency rules.

The ruling could also endanger work on competition issues by the FTC and net neutrality by the FCC.

Photo: Geoff Livingston/Getty Images

The Supreme Court’s decision last week gutting the Environmental Protection Agency’s ability to regulate greenhouse gas emissions didn’t just signal the conservative justices’ dislike of the Clean Air Act at a moment of climate crisis. It also served as a warning for anyone that would like to see more regulation of Big Tech.

At the heart of Chief Justice John Roberts’ decision in West Virginia v. EPA was a codification of the “major questions doctrine,” which, he wrote, requires “clear congressional authorization” when agencies want to regulate on areas of great “economic and political significance.”

Keep Reading Show less
Ben Brody

Ben Brody (@ BenBrodyDC) is a senior reporter at Protocol focusing on how Congress, courts and agencies affect the online world we live in. He formerly covered tech policy and lobbying (including antitrust, Section 230 and privacy) at Bloomberg News, where he previously reported on the influence industry, government ethics and the 2016 presidential election. Before that, Ben covered business news at CNNMoney and AdAge, and all manner of stories in and around New York. He still loves appearing on the New York news radio he grew up with.


Microsoft and Google are still using emotion AI, but with limits

Microsoft said accessibility goals overrode problems with emotion recognition and Google offers off-the-shelf emotion recognition technology amid growing concern over the controversial AI.

Emotion recognition is a well-established field of computer vision research; however, AI-based technologies used in an attempt to assess people’s emotional states have moved beyond the research phase.

Photo: Microsoft

Microsoft said last month it would no longer provide general use of an AI-based cloud software feature used to infer people’s emotions. However, despite its own admission that emotion recognition technology creates “risks,” it turns out the company will retain its emotion recognition capability in an app used by people with vision loss.

In fact, amid growing concerns over development and use of controversial emotion recognition in everyday software, both Microsoft and Google continue to incorporate the AI-based features in their products.

“The Seeing AI person channel enables you to recognize people and to get a description of them, including an estimate of their age and also their emotion,” said Saqib Shaikh, a software engineering manager and project lead for Seeing AI at Microsoft who helped build the app, in a tutorial about the product in a 2017 Microsoft video.

Keep Reading Show less
Kate Kaye

Kate Kaye is an award-winning multimedia reporter digging deep and telling print, digital and audio stories. She covers AI and data for Protocol. Her reporting on AI and tech ethics issues has been published in OneZero, Fast Company, MIT Technology Review, CityLab, Ad Age and Digiday and heard on NPR. Kate is the creator of RedTailMedia.org and is the author of "Campaign '08: A Turning Point for Digital Media," a book about how the 2008 presidential campaigns used digital media and data.

Latest Stories