Eight things we learned from the Epic v. Apple ruling

Anti-steering is out, mobile gaming is in, Fortnite's still off the iPhone and more.

The Apple logo and a Fortnite character on a yellow background.

District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled Friday in the Epic v. Apple trial.

Image: Protocol

It's finally here, the moment that gamers and tech antitrust nerds alike waited months for: District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled Friday in the Epic v. Apple trial.

As part of one of the biggest tech competition decisions in a generation, Apple has to end its policy prohibiting apps from directing users to make purchases outside the App Store, where Apple doesn't get a commission. But there's so much more.

Mobile games are a huge deal, especially for Apple

The judge's ruling contained a bit of scolding that neither side was quite willing to talk about what was really going on: Epic wanted to rail about how Apple controls its App Store, and Apple wanted everyone to look at all kinds of ways to do all kinds of gaming.

Gonzalez Rogers said, though, that the real market at issue was mobile games. Not all apps like Epic wanted, not all games on all platforms like Apple said, but where the actual money is for these companies. After all, the industry is worth $100 billion, according to the decision.

"Over 98% of Apple's in-app purchase revenue came from games in 2018 to 2019," Gonzalez Rogers wrote, suggesting that some of the numbers had previously been sealed. "Moreover, game transactions overall accounted for 76% of Apple's App Store revenues in 2017, 62.9% in 2018, and 68% in 2020."

As if that weren't enough, just 6% of people who spent any money on games in 2017 accounted for a massive 88% of all game billings that year, according to the decision. Gonzalez Rogers wrote that economically, the App Store is "primarily a game store and secondarily an 'every other' app store."

Epic, of course, is also suing Google, and Gonzalez Rogers said the model looked similar for that company.

Fortnite's still not coming back to the iPhone yet

Following the ruling, Epic's Tim Sweeney tweeted that "Fortnite 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." That obviously didn't happen. Apple, meanwhile, doesn't seem to feel particularly welcoming, either: On Friday, it said it denied a request from Epic to republish Fortnite on iOS in South Korea. Last month, the country passed a law opening the door for alternative mobile app payment systems.

Apple probably got the better end of things

Sure, the ruling changes the core of how the App Store has long worked. And it went further than Apple was willing to last month in settling a class action lawsuit that was also before Gonzalez Rogers. There, Apple only allowed advertisements about alternative payments outside of apps.

Still, the decision may seem like a good deal compared to where things could be going for the company. South Korea's law goes further than Friday's ruling, for instance, and Apple's recent settlement with Japanese competition authorities did allow notices in-app in certain cases. Apple also faces the app store bill in Congress, a Justice Department probe where officials were watching the decision and more. Epic, meanwhile, won on only one count, and it has to pay for breach of contract.

Apple tends to project pluckiness even when it feels panicked, but the statement of its general counsel that called the ruling "a resounding victory" may not have been so far off.

We're still not sure what a video game even is

For a ruling that deliberately rejected Apple's focus on the full video game market, Friday's decision seemed shakiest when trying to say what a video game actually is. During the trial, there was already a late-night dorm room quality to the discussions about defining video games. Throw in consoles, PCs, cloud gaming and the metaverse, and it seems things got pretty muddy right into the judge's decision.

"At a bare minimum, video games appear to require some level of interactivity or involvement between the player and the medium," Gonzalez Rogers wrote. "In other words, a game requires that a player be able to input some level of a command or choice which is then reflected in the game itself."

She lamented, though, that even Epic and Apple didn't seem to be able to define the "highly eclectic and diverse" genre comprehensively. The judge mentioned Pong, Oregon Trail, The Sims and "Black Mirror: Bandersnatch," but ultimately rested on self-conception.

"The Court need not reach a conclusive definition of a video game or game because by all accounts, Fortnite itself is both externally and internally considered a video game," she wrote.

Apple's not definitely breaking the law, but its fees are iffy

Epic's focus on the App Store meant it didn't offer evidence that spoke to whether Apple was acting illegally in the market for mobile games, which is what Gonzalez Rogers said Epic should have emphasized. And she accepted Apple's defenses for a lot of conduct that would likely come up in a case based on the judge's market, like Apple's assertion that it's trying to protect privacy and security on the App Store.

She also found, however, "considerable market share" for Apple in her preferred market for mobile games, "extraordinarily high profit margins" on the App Store, "numerous anticompetitive effects" and "incipient antitrust violations." Particularly important were those incipient violations ("beginning to come into being or to become apparent," thanks Merriam-Webster). Courts have found that the California Unfair Competition Law bars those, which allowed Gonzalez Rogers to stop the anti-steering provisions even though she didn't find for Epic under any federal antitrust laws.

She also said the 30% fee that Apple currently takes from many kinds of in-app purchases appeared to be above what competition would produce, and that the commission had arisen not because of market forces but simply because Apple had set its rate there.

No, the App Store is not like Nordstrom, either

As the lawyers for both sides tried to make their points about big legal concepts and new markets during the trial, they often resorted to metaphors. The App Store was like a grocery store, or a car dealership, or even a cow, depending on who you asked.

In her decision, Gonzalez Rogers wrote about the notion that, if Nordstrom doesn't advertise in Macy's, Apple shouldn't have to let apps post about the fact that users can get cheaper subscriptions and goods on the web. But the judge was having none of it. After all, she reasoned, Nordstrom shoppers know all about Macy's; that's maybe not true of app users.

"Apple created a new and innovative platform which was also a black box," she wrote. "It enforced silence to control information and actively impede users from obtaining the knowledge to obtain digital goods on other platforms."

Lawmaker pressure is still on

The ruling pleased critics of Big Tech and Apple's store policies, but many said it also showed how high the bar is for finding illegal monopolies and creating sweeping changes for the mobile environment. For several lawmakers, that meant changing the law.

Democratic House Reps. Jerry Nadler and David Cicilline, who have led a bipartisan bill package aimed at reforming tech giants, said in a joint statement the ruling was "even further evidence that Congress must enact rules of the road to ensure free and fair competition online." Their Senate counterpart, Amy Klobuchar, said she was "working hard" to advance a bipartisan bill she co-sponsored on mobile app stores and called for "other legal reforms we need to reinvigorate competition throughout our economy."

Appeals? Probably.

Sweeney said Epic would "fight on," and Apple left open the possibility of appealing when talking to reporters, so expect that we might revisit all of these questions soon.

And speaking of things that sound like "appeal," remember when Epic's marketing director got asked on the stand about the attire of a Fortnite character who is a … banana? Gonzalez Rogers got to the heart of it, writing "Peely" did not necessarily need to be dressed for court.


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