Judge dismisses Apple ‘theft’ allegations in Epic Games trial

Enlarge / A Fortnite loading screen displayed on an iPhone in 2018, when Apple and Epic were not at the legal throat of the other.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers this week dismissed two Apple counterclaims arising from the company’s antitrust / breach of contract court battle with Epic Games over the fate of Fortnite on iOS.

The underlying court case, as regular readers know, stems from Epic’s attempt in August to bypass Apple’s standard 30% fee on microtransactions by adding an “Epic Direct Payments” option to Fortnite on iOS. Apple viewed this as a breach of Epic’s development contract and consequently excluded the game from the iOS App Store, which led Epic to immediately sue Apple for “anti-competitive conduct.”

This week’s ruling, however, deals with counterclaims filed by Apple in response to that lawsuit. In those counterclaims, Apple argued that the introduction of Epic Direct Payments (which are still available in the iOS version of the game, for people who downloaded it before the removal from the App Store) amounted to a “Intentional interference” with the legitimate business of Apple. The company has also sought additional punitive damages for what it considers “little more than a theft” of the 30% commission it is owed.

“While Epic bills itself as a modern Robin Hood company, it’s actually a multi-billion dollar company that just doesn’t want to pay anything for the massive value it gets from the App Store. Apple said bluntly in its September motion.

In law, however, Judge Rogers dismissed both of these counterclaims at a hearing Tuesday, telling Apple attorney Anna Casey the company “is on the losing side,” as Courthouse reported. News and Bloomberg.

Casey argued at the hearing that Epic “has funds that should be in Apple’s possession … Epic has abused funds that should be in Apple’s hands.” But Rogers noted that only 30 percent of those funds probably belong to Apple and, more importantly, that “the 30 percent are in dispute” in the still pending case.

As to the “intentional interference” claim, Rogers was not convinced that Epic’s direct payment program amounted to an “independent wrongful act” separate from the fundamental issue of breach of contract, in law. “You can’t just independently say it’s illegal,” Rogers told Casey, referring to Epic’s conduct. “You actually must have facts.”

“This is a high stakes breach of contract and antitrust case and that’s it in my opinion,” said Rogers. And despite the loss of Apple here, those two fundamentals of the case will continue to be discussed as the case advances to trial, with arguments slated for May.

“Epic activated a feature of their app that was not reviewed or approved by Apple, and they did so with the express intention of violating the App Store guidelines that apply to all developers as well. that sell digital goods and services, ”Apple said in a statement. “Their reckless behavior has made clients pawns, and we look forward to making it fair for them in court next May.”