In an Australian court ruling, Epic Games secures a partial triumph over both Google and Apple.
Epic Games Wins Partial Victory Against Apple and Google in Australian Court
In a significant ruling, the Australian Federal Court has found that tech giants Apple and Google engaged in anti-competitive conduct by misusing their market power, specifically by restricting the use of alternative app distribution methods and alternative in-app payment processing services on their mobile operating systems.
The court ruled that both companies breached section 46 of Australia’s Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (CCA) by imposing technical and contractual restrictions that prevent developers from using or promoting alternative app stores or payment options on iOS and Android devices. This practice, the court found, effectively created "walled gardens" that limit competition for app distribution and payments within their ecosystems.
However, the court did not find that Apple and Google engaged in prohibited exclusive dealing, anticompetitive arrangements, or unconscionable conduct under Australian consumer law. The ruling is significant as it applies the newly reformed misuse of market power provisions introduced in 2017 that focus on the substantial lessening of competition effect, rather than requiring proof of intent or advantage-taking.
The litigation between Epic Games, Google, and Apple began in August 2020, following the removal of Fortnite from Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play Store due to the installation of a direct payment feature. Epic Games, the company behind Fortnite, won a partial victory in the case, with the court finding that Google and Apple's dominance of the app market substantially lessened competition and breached Australian law.
However, both Google and Apple could potentially appeal the ruling before the Federal Court full bench. Google disagrees with the court's characterization of its billing policies and practices in the Epic Games case, and contested the court's findings regarding some of its historical partnerships. Apple also disagrees with the court's ruling on certain claims in the Epic Games case.
Tim Sweeney, the CEO of Epic Games, claimed the judgment as a "HUGE WIN" for Epic Games. The judgments on Epic's cases against Apple and Google are not limited to Australia, as Sweeney is also challenging Google and Apple's dominance in the app markets through courts in the United States and Britain.
Lawyers will return to court on a date yet to be set to argue about the damages Epic is entitled to. The court has not yet released the full judgments on Epic's cases against Apple and Google, with the judgments totaling 952 pages for Apple and 914 pages for Google.
In conclusion, the specific anti-competitive practices found were the restrictions on alternative app stores and payment methods imposed by Google and Apple, which limited competition and choice for developers and consumers on their platforms in Australia. The ruling sets a precedent for future cases challenging the dominance of tech giants in the app market.
- The ruling against Apple and Google in the Australian Federal Court has set a precedent, potentially impacting future cases involving tech giants and the misuse of market power in the app industry.
- Tim Sweeney, the CEO of Epic Games, is not only challenging Apple and Google's dominance in Australia's app market, but also in the United States and Britain, hoping for a broader impact on competition in the tech industry.
- The court found that Apple and Google breached Australia’s Competition and Consumer Act 2010 by imposing restrictions on alternative app stores and payment options, which limited competition and choice for developers and consumers on their platforms.
- Google and Apple, dissatisfied with the court's findings, may potentially appeal the ruling before the Federal Court full bench, contesting the court's characterization of their billing policies and practices, as well as some of their historical partnerships.
