After years of back-and-forth battling between Fortnite publisher Epic Games and Apple, the gaming company filed a writ of certiorari asking the US Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling in their antitrust case.
Epic has argued that Apple unfairly monopolizes the mobile app space with iOS and its in-app purchasing system, thereby making billions on commissions.
The companies’ beef dates back to the end of the original antitrust trial in 2021, when Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decided on a compromise ruling that neither side fully appreciated.
It required Apple to remove policies banning developers from telling users about other payment options.
The appeals court ruling in April affirming that decision was seen as largely a victory for Apple.
In August, the Supreme Court declined to end a stay preventing even Epic’s limited victory from taking effect.
The original article contains 234 words, the summary contains 137 words. Saved 41%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
This is the best summary I could come up with:
After years of back-and-forth battling between Fortnite publisher Epic Games and Apple, the gaming company filed a writ of certiorari asking the US Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling in their antitrust case.
Epic has argued that Apple unfairly monopolizes the mobile app space with iOS and its in-app purchasing system, thereby making billions on commissions.
The companies’ beef dates back to the end of the original antitrust trial in 2021, when Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers decided on a compromise ruling that neither side fully appreciated.
It required Apple to remove policies banning developers from telling users about other payment options.
The appeals court ruling in April affirming that decision was seen as largely a victory for Apple.
In August, the Supreme Court declined to end a stay preventing even Epic’s limited victory from taking effect.
The original article contains 234 words, the summary contains 137 words. Saved 41%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!