U.S. District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers canceled two Apple counterclaims this week that stemmed from the company’s antitrust/contract breach with Epic Games. Fort night On iOS.
As ordinary readers know, this basic court case originated from Epic’s August attempt to bypass Apple’s standard 30% microtransaction fee by adding the “Epic Direct Payments” option to Apple’s microtransactions. Fort night On iOS. Apple believed that this violated Epic’s development contract, and therefore prohibited the game from entering the iOS App Store, which resulted in Epic immediately suing Apple for “anti-competitive behavior.”
However, this week’s ruling involves Apple’s counterclaim against the lawsuit. In these counterclaims, Apple argued that the introduction of Epic Direct Payments (which is still available in the iOS version of the game and applies to people who downloaded the game before the App Store removal) constituted “deliberate interference” with Apple’s legitimate business. The company also seeks additional punitive damages because it believes that the 30% commission it should charge is “much less than theft.”
Apple bluntly stated in its September motion: “Epic portrays itself as a modern company Robin Hood, but in fact it is a multi-billion-dollar company, just thinking about it from the App Store. Pay no price for the great value obtained.”
However, as a legal issue, Judge Rogers dismissed the two counterclaims in a hearing on Tuesday, telling Apple lawyer Anna Casey that the company was “on the losing side,” according to “Court News” and Bloomberg.
Casey argued at the hearing that Epic “has the funds that Apple should have… Epic has abused funds that should be held by Apple.” But Rogers pointed out that only 30% of these funds can be owned by Apple and are critical However, in the unresolved cases, “the 30% are in dispute.”
As for the “intentional interference” claim, Rogers is not convinced of the law, and Epic’s direct payment plan is equivalent to “independent wrongdoing” separate from the core breach of contract. Rogers told Casey when talking about the epic behavior: “You can’t just say that this is an independent wrongdoing. In fact, you must have the facts.”
Rogers said: “This is a high-risk breach of contract case and an antitrust case, which seems to me to be the case.” Although Apple loses here, these two core elements of the case will continue as the case enters the trial stage. Subject to controversy, the debate was originally scheduled to be held in May.
In a statement, Apple said: “Epic has enabled features in its apps that have not been reviewed or approved by Apple, and the purpose of doing so is to clearly violate the App Store that also applies to every developer selling digital goods and services. Guide.” “Their reckless behavior has pawned customers. We look forward to making the right choice for them in court in May next year.”