The law is the law, and pretty much everything is concluded in a battle at the courts.
Epic Games is an American video game and software developer and publisher, known for its Unreal Engine, a commercially available game engine which also powers its internally developed video games like Fortnite and the Unreal, Gears of War, and Infinity Blade series.
The company fought Apple is a lengthy lawsuit battle in 2020 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, related to Apple's practices in the iOS App Store.
Epic Games challenged Apple's restrictions on apps from having other in-app purchasing methods outside of the one offered by the App Store, arguing that Apple's 30% revenue cut on each purchase made in the App Store, is a monopoly, and that developers have the right to bypass this Apple restriction to make more money.
Apple filed a countersuit, asserting Epic purposely breached its terms of contract with Apple.
In the end, in a September 2021 ruling in the first part of the case, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decided in favor of Apple on nine of ten counts, but found against Apple on its anti-steering policies under the California Unfair Competition Law.
Rogers prohibited Apple from stopping developers from informing users of other payment systems within apps.
Epic appealed the ruling to the supreme court in July of 2023 though the original ruling was upheld.
Epic however, also filed another lawsuit with Google, which challenged Google's similar practices on the Google Play app store for Android, after Google pulled Fortnite following the update for similar reasons as Apple.
However, Google has stressed that the legal situation around their case is not the same as around Apple's.
This is where things get different.
Whereas Apple pretty much got away with it, in a December 2023, a jury ruled against Google in that it had unlawfully maintained its monopoly on the Android environment.
It's a major victory for Epic Games.
It's no secret that Apple rules the iPhone’s App Store with an iron fist, and that sideloading apps from outside it is not allowed. Google on the other hand, allows users to install any app on an Android phone.
But the court suggests that it's Google that has an illegal monopoly, and not Apple.
Apple mostly won a similar trial, beating claims that it had violated antitrust laws by charging mandatory in-app transaction fees and kicking Epic’s game Fortnite off the App Store. Google tried a similar move, but failed.
This is raising a lot of eyebrows.
How could Epic Games pulled off such an epic move, and possibly won against the company that gives away its open-source operating system for free, especially after losing to that company’s more locked-down competitor?
Read: Fortnite Has Been Kicked Out From Apple's App Store And Google Play Store
The contrasting outcomes of Epic Games' lawsuits against Apple and Google stem from a combination of legal differences, evidence presented, and trial dynamics.
In Epic Games versus Apple, Epic Games lost nine out of ten claims against Apple. The only win was related to allowing developers to communicate payment options outside the App Store.
The reason for the loss, include Apple's closed ecosystem. Apple's iOS platform is completely controlled, making it harder to argue for an open market. Unlike Android, users cannot freely sideload apps. Then, there is the lack of evidence, which made Epic Games struggle to prove deals between Apple and other companies restricted competition.
Then, the Apple case was decided by a judge, who might have been less swayed by Epic's narrative compared to a jury.
On the Epic Games versus Google, Epic Games won unanimously on all counts, proving Google held a monopoly in Android app distribution and in-app purchases, and engaged in anti-competitive practices.
The reasons include Android that allows a less restrictive market, in which Epic Games managed to utilize to present stronger evidence, including secret deals between Google and other companies to stifle competition.
The, there was the jury decision, which may have been more receptive to Epic's David vs. Goliath narrative.
Then, it's said that Google destroyed internal documents.
The anti-competitive behavior likely hurt its case.
The timing of the cases could have played a role, with public sentiment towards tech monopolies potentially shifting over time.
Different legal teams and strategies employed by Epic in each case also likely contributed to the outcomes.
Overall, the contrasting verdicts highlight the complexities of antitrust law and the varying ways evidence and trial dynamics can influence outcomes. While both cases focused on similar app store practices, the different ecosystems, evidence presented, and decision-makers (judge vs. jury) resulted in starkly different results.
Since 2015, Epic Games' founder and CEO Tim Sweeney had questioned whether digital storefronts like Apple's App Store for iOS devices, and Google Play on Android, as well as Valve's Steam, really have to take a 30% revenue sharing cut.
He argued that when accounting for current rates of content distribution and other factors needed, a revenue cut of 8% should be sufficient to run any digital storefront profitably.
When a 30% revenue cut became an industry standard across computers, consoles, and mobile platforms in 2019, Sweeney stated that higher revenue shares made sense on consoles where "there's enormous investment in hardware, often sold below cost, and marketing campaigns in broad partnership with publishers."
But on mobile devices and personal computers, that revenue cut doesn't make sense.
In the argument, Sweeney said that Epic Games Store was able to operate at a 12% commission, a cut that is significantly lower than rivals.
In the trials between Epic Games and Apple, and also Google, the company did not seek monetary damages, but instead was "seeking injunctive relief to allow fair competition in these two key markets that directly affect hundreds of millions of consumers and tens of thousands, if not more, of third-party app developers."
Sweeney said that the company is going through the troubles as "we're fighting for the freedom of people who bought smartphones to install apps from sources of their choosing, the freedom for creators of apps to distribute them as they choose, and the freedom of both groups to do business directly. The primary opposing argument is: 'Smartphone markers can do whatever they want.' This as an awful notion.[sic] We all have rights, and we need to fight to defend our rights against whoever would deny them."
During the cases, rivals of both Apple and Google sides with Epic Games.
Read: Epic Games Vs. Apple: A Big Win For The Fortnite Developer And Others
