GameSpot may receive revenue from affiliate and advertising partnerships for sharing this content and from purchases through links.

Epic Games Case Judge Says Apple Must Allow Alternative Payment Methods On App Store

The Apple vs. Epic Games proceedings have had their largest ruling handed down, and it changes everything for Apple.

45 Comments

Apple and Epic Games have been locked in legal proceedings ever since the iPhone maker removed Fortnite from the App Store over a year ago. Today, September 10, the judge in the trial has handed down a permanent injunction in Epic's favor in some respects, mandating that Apple must allow app developers to source income from outside of the App Store ecosystem.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers concluded in the ruling that the court could not prove that Apple was engaging in monopolistic behavior under federal or state anti-trust laws, but that "the trial did show that Apple is engaging in anti-competitive conduct under California’s competition laws." This was the only count that the court sided with Epic Games on, with Apple winning all other nine counts.

Please use a html5 video capable browser to watch videos.
This video has an invalid file format.
00:00:00
Sorry, but you can't access this content!
Please enter your date of birth to view this video

By clicking 'enter', you agree to GameSpot's
Terms of Use and Privacy Policy

Now Playing: Epic Vs Apple Explained

"The Court does not find that Apple is an antitrust monopolist in the submarket for mobile gaming transactions," the ruling reads. "However, it does find that Apple’s conduct in enforcing anti-steering restrictions is anticompetitive. A remedy to eliminate those provisions is appropriate. This measured remedy will increase competition, increase transparency, increase consumer choice and information while preserving Apple’s iOS ecosystem which has procompetitive justifications. Moreover, it does not require the Court to micromanage business operations which courts are not well-suited to do as the Supreme Court has appropriately recognized."

"Success is not illegal," the ruling continues. "The final trial record did not include evidence of other critical factors, such as barriers to entry and conduct decreasing output or decreasing innovation in the relevant market. The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist."

With this injunction, the court now says that Apple is "permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from 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."

This is a landmark ruling that will have ramifications for not just Epic Games, but all developers on the App Store. It means that they can legally sidestep the royalty fee that Apple has required from all apps published on iOS since the App Store was first launched. It also means that Google could face similar treatment, with the tech giant also embroiled in court proceedings with Epic Games over the same concerns.

Epic Games is being forced to pay Apple $12 million for its breach of contract last year, but the rules broken at that time are now no longer a factor for any App Store developer. Apple will have to instate this change within 90 days of the ruling, while Epic Games will be required to pay 30% of the fine by the same time.

Speaking with GameSpot, attorney Richard Hoeg said, "On preliminary review, it appears to be a near total victory for Apple. The judge has some harsh words for the Apple business model and some of its trial testimony, but ultimately finds that it is not a monopolist or otherwise acting in violation of federal antitrust law, finding instead that Epic breached its agreement and that Apple can terminate its relationship if desired."

This ruling comes just hours after Apple refused to allow Epic Games to reinstate Fortnite on the App Store in South Korea. Earlier this week, the South Korean government handed down a similar ruling to Apple, baring them from forcing app developers into its royalty scheme over similar anti-trust concerns.

This could also mean that apps previously restricted from the App Store, such as Xbox Cloud Gaming, could now find their way onto the store (we've reached out to Microsoft for comment). Apple will be hosting its annual Fall iPhone event on September 14. It's unclear yet if either, or both, are planning to appeal, but Hoeg believes appeals from both sides are coming.

"Now, frankly I expect both sides to appeal the decision, Apple in respect of anti-steering (particularly in applying California state law on a nationwide basis) and Epic on virtually everything else," Hoeg said.

In response to the decision, Apple released a statement in which it quoted the judge's ruling that "success is not illegal." You can read the full statement below.

Epic's CEO, Tim Sweeney, also commented on the judgment, saying it is not actually a win for developers or consumers and suggesting that Fortnite may not return to the App Store anytime soon.

"Today’s ruling isn't a win for developers or for consumers. Epic is fighting for fair competition among in-app payment methods and app stores for a billion consumers," Sweeney said. "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. Thanks to everyone who put so much time and effort into the battle over fair competition on digital platforms, and thanks especially to the court for managing a very complex case on a speedy timeline. We will fight on."

Got a news tip or want to contact us directly? Email news@gamespot.com

Join the conversation
There are 45 comments about this story
45 Comments  RefreshSorted By 
GameSpot has a zero tolerance policy when it comes to toxic conduct in comments. Any abusive, racist, sexist, threatening, bullying, vulgar, and otherwise objectionable behavior will result in moderation and/or account termination. Please keep your discussion civil.

Avatar image for nintendians
nintendians

6046

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 139

User Lists: 0

if all the cosmetic stuff is sold and all the money going to apple then, i can see why their making alot of money off from a company who actually owns the stuff.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for lonewolf1044
lonewolf1044

4985

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 6

User Lists: 0

I do not buy games on Apple even though I have an iPhone, so this ruling means nothing to me. Luckily for Epic the only time use them is when they have those free games.

3 • 
Avatar image for skyhighgam3r
SkyHighGam3r

4788

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

This idea that "digital goods" shouldn't be sold competitively is weird.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for so_hai
so_hai

4385

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 89

User Lists: 0

Epic annoyed Apple nicely.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for sippio
sippio

2884

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

I kinda hate both companies for being rotten.

But Apple effect sme mor esinc emy wife,kid & i have iphones.

~ive wanted to leave for 2 years now and it looks like it's finally happening.

*My technical reason= i hate the lack of headphone jack and i really hate that charging female port.

*2021 Disclaimer~ im not assuming the phones ports gender just that it has a female part. ;D

The adapters are crap. Even official ones are unreliable at best and buying only apple headphones isn't an option. Wife and kid dislike Apples shady business practices. Kids only 13 too lol.

Other tech reason is 1 have two other iphones i cant use 6+ and 7+ cause they both have stripped out female charging ports and wont charge. and i did find a work around for the 6+ but it restarts constantly and ive tried every fix i can.

The reaosn why it's a big deal is i cant get it repaired easilly without going to a shady repair place. which i might end up doing. Well see....

*Anyone have a suggestion for which phone i should get? we have At&t.

I used to like the WIndows phone but i don't think they even still make em.

im not into weird looking watch so that's not a factor on what phone i need.

I don't gam on my phone at all. I do music,browse internet when out and talk/text. simple easy peasy imo..We're supposed to hit up the store this week to find out what's out there since i am so disconnected cause it has bored me for awhile.

I usually upgrade wifes phone and take her old one but she stopped using the larger ones....

Appreciate anyone nice enough(unlikely) to reply with phone ideas.

5 • 
Avatar image for deth420
deth420

1302

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -1

User Lists: 0

Edited By deth420

@sippio: But Apple effect sme mor esinc emy wife,kid & i have iphones.

sent from my iphone

but really,

"*Anyone have a suggestion for which phone i should get? we have At&t."

dump at&t is what I recommend ;)

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

How is this a victory for Apple? Each and every app should move their payments off the App Store to get 100% of the revenue now.

6 • 
Avatar image for MigGui
MigGui

2043

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

Edited By MigGui

@Thanatos2k: right? "Apple won on every account but one". But that's the only one that mattered. Every company large enough to afford making a storefront will invite their users to buy IAPs out of their apps (lol) to circumvent the 30%.

4 • 
Avatar image for argothm
argothm

100

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

@Thanatos2k: This is not true in the least, having different payment options simply means the 30% isn't being retained, doesn't mean its not getting paid.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for Thanatos2k
Thanatos2k

17660

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Edited By Thanatos2k

@argothm: Well it does mean Apple can't prove how much should be collected. Amazon was able to get away with not paying sales tax for years with similar strategies.

2 • 
Avatar image for argothm
argothm

100

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

@Thanatos2k: Apple doesn't need to really, they just need to add a clause to put that obligation on the devs and put a penalty in case they fail to produce the information. Not to mention that faking anything would open them up to commiting fraud.

Sales taxes are a completely different situation than a contract in this case.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for allever
allever

265

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@argothm: Actually, what you're saying makes no sense. How will Apple be able to penalize companies for not providing their In-App sales to them? What right does Apple has to this information?

2 • 
Avatar image for argothm
argothm

100

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

@allever: It actually makes absolute sense, like I said, a simple clause that obligates the developer to make em reveal that information on a monthly basis. This is actually a very common clause in cases where one of the contracting parties charges on a contingecy basis. Should they fail to do so they'd open themselves to penalties and if they falsify the information they open themselves to fraud.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for allever
allever

265

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@argothm:It's not a simple clause. that they can just add. No business would ever give up their private financial records to another business. And there is no such thing as "fraud" because they are not a government entity and/or protected by law. Apple as a business is not above any other business.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for argothm
argothm

100

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

Edited By argothm

@allever: The clause its extremely simple and you'd be surprised on how many businesses would be willing to do so, after all, apple has the biggest app store in the united states, you want in or don't, but those are the terms and you can just forgo giving em your financial records if you go through the app store. Either way, the company in question does not need to show them all their financial records, they could just show the table of operations from the paying service they use to charge users.

The hell are you talking about, fraud doesn't apply exclusively for government entities and everyone is protected by the law, you can be defrauded or commit fraud against any citizen.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for allever
allever

265

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

@argothm: You're talking out of your arse. Apple does not have the power to compel any other businesses to provide them their financial records or any records.

Fraud is what's set by law. Apple does not have the power to enforce what they may see as "fraud". They can sue other businesses for breach of contract, or such things.

Apple can update pricing for buying apps to recuperate that 30%, but that also has it's problem. Apple can lower in-app fees to compete with competitors that are bound to come in if this ruling prevails..

Of course, the ruling is likely being appealed, so we will see how things goes.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for argothm
argothm

100

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

Edited By argothm

@allever: It all comes down to how the clause on the contract is redacted. It could certainly contain a provision that allows them to still charge 30% of the income generated by the microtransactions of the app in question, of course as long as its the relevant income related to the version of the app in their appstore.

And yes, fraud its whatever is set by law and while the definition may differ from one state to another it usually comes down to intentional deception to secure unfair or unlawful gain, or to deprive a victim of a legal right. Assuming there's a clause in place that allows apple to gain a "percentage of the sales", intentionally misrepresenting those sales might open up the person in question to legal consequences.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for ghost140
ghost140

744

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

I dont think this means devs can avoid that 30%, i think i read in that S. Korea ruling that apple said they will still collect that 30% its just not automatic now. From what has been said here the judge said Apple cant force devs to use its payment system but it says nothing about them not paying that fee.

2 • 
Avatar image for MigGui
MigGui

2043

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

@ghost140: I do think that means devs can avoid the 30%. Apple gets 30% of everything sold through the app store, not of everything sold for apps from the app store. If Epic is allowed to direct customers to buy from their website, then it's not through the app store.

The win for Apple is that they can still forbid companies from offering apps to be downloaded from outside of the store. But that is a very small win...

Upvote • 
Avatar image for argothm
argothm

100

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

@ghost140: Exactly, people don't seem to understand that part. It simply means apple won't charge the money directly in some cases.

Upvote • 
Avatar image for s1taz4a3l
s1taz4a3l

1069

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

Edited By s1taz4a3l

Pyrrhic victory for apple, they could have saved hundreds of millions by allowing fortnite to continue selling their packs on their own. Now apple will lose money from every front with devs enabling direct payments. They have money to burn to waste on appeals so this is far from over.

4 • 
Avatar image for argothm
argothm

100

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 5

@s1taz4a3l: This is actually not true, even if devs allow direct payments that doesn't mean apple won't be able to charge the 30% revenue, it all comes down to how the clause is redacted.

Upvote •