Author: Deeya Thapa, University of North Bengal

According to market capitalization, Apple Inc. is the most valuable firm in the world. The iPhone is its primary source of income; app developers use the embedded operating system iOS as a platform to market their creations via Apple’s App Store. Epic Games, Inc. is a game developer famous for its shooter game Fortnite, which it makes available on various gaming platforms, including iOS. Due to Apple’s policy of requiring the use of its in-app payment processor for all app sales and collecting a 30% commission on both initial and subsequent in-app purchases, the number of apps in Apple’s App Store has decreased in recent years. This case of Epic Games v. Apple arises from the above-stated issue, where Epic Games has filed a case against Apple for engaging in monopolistic practices and alleged anti-competitive conduct in the operation of its App Store. This case is significant from legal, regulatory, and policy perspectives. Legally, it tests the application of antitrust principles, particularly under the Sherman Antitrust Act, in the context of digital platforms. From a regulatory standpoint, it has prompted global scrutiny of the role of dominant technology companies as digital “gatekeepers.” From a policy perspective, it highlights the ongoing debate between maintaining platform security and ensuring fair competition and innovation.

This case study examines the legal issues raised in the dispute, particularly focusing on whether Apple possesses the ability to control or restrict developers in the distribution of applications within its ecosystem.

Apple initially prohibited downloads of native apps from third parties, but in late 2007, Apple started licensing third-party developers with the interfaces and technology to develop native apps. Apple distributes its basic developer tools for free but charges an annual fee of 99 USD for membership in its developer program (needed to distribute apps). Pursuant to the terms of its Developer Program Licensing Agreement (“DPLA”), Apple imposed various restrictions on app developers like Epic Games, Inc. , including restrictions on app distribution on certain devices, requiring “in app” purchases to go through Apple’s payment processor, and preventing developers from communicating to iOS device users the existence of available and sometimes less expensive payment options. Dissatisfied with these policies, Epic Games tried to use its flagship game Fortnite as leverage to convince Apple to open up its closed platform. After Apple refused, Epic Games violated the App Store rules by enabling its own payment method in the Fortnite iOS app on August 13, 2020. On the same day, Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store and Epic Games filed an antitrust suit in a federal district court in California. Apple soon thereafter countersued for breach of contract and sought for Temporary Restraint Order (TRO) to stop Apple from terminating its account. The court granted the TRO only for preventing Apple from terminating Epic’s other developer accounts. After the expiry of TRO, the court granted a preliminary injunction for the same.

Epic sought permanent injunctive relief under Sherman Act and UCL. This relief would provide the developers to bypass Apple’s 30% commission. Apple, in return, counter-claimed for breach of contract.

The primary statutory provisions related to this case were governed under U.S. antitrust laws particularly:

• Section 1 of Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1980) prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies that restrain trade.


• Section 2 of Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1980) prohibits monopolization or attempts to monopolize any part of trade or commerce.


• Section 4 of Clayton’s Act states that any person injured in business or property due to an antitrust violation may sue for damages, including attorney’s fees.

• California Unfair Competition Law (UCL), which prohibits unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices. Epic Games relied on this law to challenge Apple’s App Store policies.

In addition to the above statutory provisions, the case also involves certain legal concepts such as market definition and monopoly power.

The following key legal issues that were raised in this case are as follows:

1. Whether Apple’s mandatory 30% commission on in-app purchases is anti-competitive and unfair to developers?

2. Whether Apple holds a monopoly in:

iOS app distribution, and iOS in-app payment system.

3. Does Apple’s App Store structure violate antitrust laws?

4. Did Epic’s “Project Liberty” amount to a planned breach of contract?

The various type of Stakeholders involved in this case are as follows:

1. Apple Inc. owns the App Store and it prohibits the distribution of iOS apps outside of the App Store, which Apple fully controls. Apple similarly requires developers to exclusively use its own in-app payment system for app purchases and in-app purchases for digital content. Through this system, Apple automatically collects a 30% commission on all such transactions. Its policies are being challenged in this case

2. Epic Games, Inc. is the developer who filed a lawsuit against Apple, arguing that Apple’s rules are too restrictive and not fair. Epic Games Inc. challenged Apple’s policy of collecting 30% commission from developers, arguing that it is anti-competitive and violates antitrust principles.

3. The App developers are the third-party creators who rely on the App Store to distribute their apps out to users and are affected by Apple’s commission and restrictions. 

4. Consumers, or users of iOS devices, can end up facing higher prices and limited payment options.

Epic Games, Inc. argued that Apple’s 30% commission and the policies violate antitrust law and are anti-competitive. Epic Games referred to the federal Sherman Antitrust Act and the California Cartwright Act regarding the practices of Apple with respect to the App Store and its payment system. Distributing apps to users becomes difficult due to Apple's policies, which create contractual and technological barriers. Epic Games also argued that the freedom of smartphone users to install apps from sources of their choice, and the freedom of app developers to upload apps in any App Store they like, should be ensured. It claimed that Apple has a monopoly in iOS app distribution.

On the other hand, Apple Inc. argued that it has its own freedom to devise its own policies regarding the revenue cut or revenue sharing from app purchases. Similar policies regarding revenue cut have been used for PlayStation Store, Nintendo eShop, and Xbox Live. Apple also pointed out that Epic Games knowingly violated the terms of service, which required Apple to remove Fortnite from the App Store. Apple further argued that, as the operator of the App Store, it is free to set pricing policies within a competitive and regulated market.

The court carefully examined the market conditions and found that Apple Inc. does not have a monopoly in the gaming industry. The court applied antitrust principles to analyze whether Apple’s conduct restricted competition. However, under California law, Apple’s regulations were found to be anti-steering and anti-competitive. The court came to the conclusion that Apple’s restrictions limited consumer choice by prohibiting developers from informing customers about alternative ways to make purchases. Thus, the court found that Epic Games, Inc. had violated its contract with Apple by purposefully bypassing the App Store payment mechanism.

The court delivered its decision on September 10, 2021. It held that Apple Inc. was not a monopoly and did not break laws in most cases winning nine out of ten counts. However, the court found that its anti-steering provisions were anti-competitive. The court also ruled against Epic Games, Inc. had to pay 30% of the revenue that was withheld to Apple related to their attempts-to bypass the App Store, and further stated that the Epic Games  did violate its contractual terms as a developer with Apple in the way it deployed the update to Fortnite in August 2020, which triggered the dispute. Judge Rogers also stated that Apple’s single violation of California law was not serious enough to justify Epic’s breach of contract. Following the decision, both parties filed appeals, indicating that the dispute would continue.

In addition to this, the case also led to wider consequences at the global level. The European Union introduced the Digital Markets Act, which required Apple to allow third-party app stores on iOS devices. Similarly, the United Kingdom also passed similar legislation to regulate digital markets. As a result, Epic Games planned to launch its own app store and reintroduce Fortnite on iOS platforms in Europe. These developments show that the case has not only affected the parties involved but has also influenced international regulatory frameworks and increased scrutiny on large technology companies.

The decision in this particular case is partly fair and balanced. The court issued a ruling that was neither in favor of Apple nor Epic Games but rather tried to compromise between the two extreme sides. It held that Apple is not a monopolist under antitrust law, which shows that the court has carefully demonstrated the applicability of legal principles. The court also noted that the anti-steering rules of the App Store are anticompetitive and thus would harm consumer and developer competition, thereby promoting transparency and consumer choice. However, the decision does not fully address the bigger problem. Even though developers are now allowed to inform users about alternative payment options, Apple Inc. still maintains strong control over its App Store ecosystem. Because of this, the main issue of platform power and dependency has not been completely resolved.

There are also certain limitations in the judgement. The court did not directly regulate Apple’s 30% commission, which continues to remain a concern for developers. In addition, enforcing these rules in practice may not be very simple, as companies can still find indirect ways to maintain control while technically complying with the law.

On a broader level, the case has influenced global regulation. Laws like the Digital Markets Act in the European Union show that governments are now taking stricter steps to regulate big digital platforms. This clearly indicates that while the judgement is important, it is not a complete solution, and further reforms are likely to be needed in the future.

The case of Apple Inc. shows that even if a company is not strictly a monopoly under law, its control over users, developers, and information can still create competition concerns. It also highlights that companies cannot always depend only on “security” or “privacy” arguments to justify restrictive policies, especially when they affect market access.

Further this case has also influenced how governments think about regulating digital platforms. Laws like the Digital Markets Act in the European Union directly address issues raised in this case by requiring large platforms to allow third-party app stores and reduce control over distribution systems. Similarly, South Korea’s “Anti-Google Law” introduced rules that require app store operators to support alternative payment systems.

The Epic Games v. Apple case is an important case relating to the competition issues in the digital world. The court decided that Apple is not a monopoly under antitrust law, but it still found that its anti-steering rules were unfair because they limited what consumers choose. It also held that Epic Games breached the contract by using its own payment system instead of Apple’s. Overall, the decision tries to balance both sides, and it has also played a role in shaping how countries think about regulating big tech platforms.

1. Epic Games v. Apple Inc., Competition Law Insight, https://www.competitionlawinsight.com/incoming/epic-v-apple-149875.htm (last visited Apr. 21, 2026).

2. Kyle G. Bates & Tae H. Kim, Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc.: A New Day for Injunctive Relief Under California’s UCL? Hausfeld Competition Bulletin (Sept. 15, 2023), https://www.hausfeld.com/en-us/what-we-think/competition-bulletin/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc-a-new-day-for-injunctive-relief-under-california-s-ucl.

3. Vandana Vyas, Apple–Epic Games Dispute: Mediation and Arbitration in Digital Economy, Vintage Legal (Dec. 26, 2025), https://www.vintagelegalvl.com/post/apple-epic-games-dispute-mediation-and-arbitration-in-digital-economy.

4. Epic Games, Inc., v. Apple, Inc., 67 F.4th 946 (9th Cir.2023).