Judge Rogers thus issued a permanent injunction that requires Apple to let U.S. When coupled with Apple's incipient antitrust violations, these anti-steering provisions are anticompetitive and a nationwide remedy to eliminate those provisions is warranted. The Court concludes that Apple’s anti-steering provisions hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice.
#Apple vs epic final verdict trial
Nonetheless, the trial did show that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive conduct under California's competition laws. The Court does not find that it is impossible only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist. 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. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. Having defined the relevant market as digital mobile gaming transactions, the Court next evaluated Apple's conduct in that market. In a 185-page ruling, Judge Rogers said "the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws," but she said the trial "did show that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive conduct under California's competition laws." Rogers concluded that "Apple's anti-steering provisions hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice": District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruling that Apple's anti-steering conduct is anti-competitive, and ruling in favor of Apple on all other counts. A decision was reached today in the high-profile Epic Games v.
0 kommentar(er)
