In a recent legal development, the American Antitrust Institute (AAI) has submitted an amicus brief supporting Epic Games in its ongoing litigation against Apple. The AAI contends that Apple’s recent modifications to its App Store pricing policies are inadequate and fail to address the core anticompetitive issues at hand.
Background of the Dispute
The conflict between Apple and Epic Games began in 2020 when Apple removed Epic’s popular game, Fortnite, from the App Store. This action was taken after Epic implemented a direct payment system within the game, circumventing Apple’s in-app purchase mechanism and its associated 30% commission fee. Epic’s move was a direct challenge to Apple’s control over app distribution and monetization on iOS devices.
In response, Apple cited violations of its App Store guidelines, leading to Fortnite’s removal. Epic promptly filed a lawsuit, alleging that Apple’s practices constituted monopolistic behavior and stifled competition. The case has since become a focal point in the broader debate over the power and influence of major tech platforms.
Court Rulings and Apple’s Response
In a significant ruling, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers determined that Apple’s anti-steering policies, which prevented developers from directing users to alternative payment methods, violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. The court issued an injunction requiring Apple to allow developers to include links to external payment options within their apps.
In an attempt to comply with the injunction while maintaining its revenue model, Apple introduced a new policy. This policy permitted developers to inform users about alternative payment methods but imposed a 27% commission on transactions completed outside the App Store. This move was met with criticism, as it was perceived as a way for Apple to retain its financial benefits despite the court’s directive.
AAI’s Critique of Apple’s Measures
The American Antitrust Institute has expressed strong disapproval of Apple’s revised policies. In their amicus brief, the AAI argues that Apple’s new practices effectively replicate the anticompetitive effects of the original policies. They assert that by imposing a substantial commission on external transactions, Apple continues to deter developers from offering alternative payment options, thereby preserving its dominant position in the app marketplace.
The AAI further contends that Apple’s justification for these commissions, which includes recouping costs associated with App Store development and maintenance, lacks specificity and fails to address the broader concerns about market competition. They emphasize that such justifications should be directly related to the conduct in question and not serve as a blanket defense for potentially anticompetitive practices.
Implications for Antitrust Remedies
The AAI’s brief also highlights concerns about the broader implications of Apple’s appeal arguments. They suggest that if Apple’s stance were to be upheld, it could undermine the effectiveness of antitrust remedies and set a precedent that allows dominant firms to circumvent regulatory actions through superficial policy changes. This could have far-reaching consequences for the enforcement of antitrust laws and the promotion of competitive markets.
Current Status and Future Outlook
As the legal proceedings continue, the outcome of this case is being closely watched by industry stakeholders, regulators, and legal experts. The court’s decision will not only impact the relationship between Apple and app developers but also influence the regulatory landscape for digital marketplaces.
Notably, Fortnite, the game at the center of this dispute, made its return to the App Store in May 2025. This development indicates a complex and evolving relationship between Apple and Epic Games, even as legal battles persist.
Broader Context of App Store Policies
Apple’s App Store policies have been the subject of scrutiny and criticism from various quarters. In 2023, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) released a report stating that the current app store models employed by Apple and Google create conditions that are suboptimal for competition. The report highlighted that the policies in place impose unnecessary barriers and costs for app developers, ranging from fees for access to functional restrictions that favor some apps over others. The NTIA called for measures to open the ecosystem to greater competition, suggesting that the current system benefits primarily the platform owners rather than consumers or developers.
Additionally, in 2024, Dutch regulators ruled that Apple’s requirement for developers to use its in-app payment system was anti-competitive. The Netherlands’ Authority for Consumers and Markets mandated that Apple make changes to its policies to allow alternative payment methods, imposing fines for non-compliance. This ruling underscored the growing international pressure on Apple to revise its App Store practices to foster a more competitive environment.
Conclusion
The ongoing legal battle between Apple and Epic Games, bolstered by the American Antitrust Institute’s recent amicus brief, underscores the complexities and challenges in regulating digital marketplaces. As tech giants like Apple continue to wield significant influence over app distribution and monetization, the need for effective antitrust enforcement and policy reforms becomes increasingly critical to ensure a fair and competitive digital economy.
