35 AGs Support Epic in Antitrust Appeal

Attorneys general for 34 states and the District of Columbia filed an appeal against a California court ruling that was largely in favor of Apple in Epic’s fight over App Store fees, according to multiple reports.

Led by Utah, Microsoft also supported the appeal, joining the AGs in filing amicus curiae briefs with the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Biden Administration also backed the appeal, with the Antitrust Division filing a brief.

“Apple’s conduct has harmed and is harming mobile app developers and millions of citizens,” the states said. “Meanwhile, Apple continues to monopolize app distribution and in-app payment solutions for iPhones, stifle competition, and amass supracompetitive profits within the almost trillion-dollar-a-year smartphone industry.”

See also: Apple Scores Victory in Case Against Epic Games

Maker of the popular game Fortnite and numerous other titles, Epic took aim at Apple over the 15% to 30% commission fees it charges developers for using its App Store and disallowing alternate means to get its product to iPhone users. The lawsuit centered on allegations that Apple engaged in anti-competitive practices and was in violation of antitrust laws.

The appeal and briefs follow the decision by a U.S. district judge in Oakland, California that mostly supported Apple over Epic last year. That decision indicated that Apple’s commission rates and required in-app payment system wasn’t in violation of antitrust regulations.

Apple is anticipated to respond to the appeal in March but reportedly said it was confident the original court decision would stand and Epic’s appeal would ultimately be unsuccessful.

Read more: Epic Games Mounts New Appeal in Case Against Apple

The AGs maintained in their filings that the lower court failed to consider the pros and cons of Apple’s App Store requirements by ruling that central antitrust regulation wasn’t applicable in Apple’s non-negotiable contracts signed by developers.

“Paradoxically, firms with enough market power to unilaterally impose contracts would be protected from antitrust scrutiny — precisely the firms whose activities give the most cause for antitrust concern,” they said.