Please support Game Informer. Print magazine subscriptions are less than $2 per issue


Epic Games Appeals Judge's Decision In Case Against Apple

by John Carson on Sep 13, 2021 at 10:00 AM

Following a ruling on Friday that resulted in an injunction against Apple, Epic Games has chosen to continue its legal pursuits and appeal the decision. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers has decided Epic did not give sufficient evidence to prove Apple was a monopolistic force in the video gaming space.

“Notice is hereby given that Epic Games, Inc… appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit from the final Judgment entered on September 10, 2021 (ECF No. 814), and all orders leading to or producing that judgment,” reads the appeal Epic filed on Sunday. Why appeal the result, including an injunction that opened up payment choices for app developers? For one thing, Epic was found in breach of contract for bypassing Apple’s in-app payment systems for a short time. The judge ordered the Unreal Engine creator to pay a sum of $3.6 million, the 30% cut Apple would have received if payments were processed based on what was agreed.

While Epic did succeed in one category of the legal dispute – a massive win for app developers as a whole which will help avoid Apple’s grasp of sharing in-app purchasing revenues – its goal is broader than in-app purchasing freedoms. Whether it be overall reduced revenue sharing when using Apple’s App Store or allowing other digital marketplaces onto iOS ecosystems. Microsoft’s Xbox Cloud Gaming service is a good example of how Apple has restricted companies from putting any semblance of an alternate gaming portal in the App Store. As a result, Microsoft has decided to bypass the traditional app model on iOS and instead function through the web browser on supported Apple devices.

Details are scarce at the moment about Epic Games’ appeal other than paperwork has been filed. There’s no current timeline of when or how long the appeal may take, but we’ll keep you up to date on it if/when there are substantial developments in the case.