Apple’s monopoly on software distribution through the App Store stifles competition, attorneys general from 35 states told a California appeals court on Thursday.
According to Reuters, the joint statement was issued as part of the continuing appeals process following the judge’s judgement in the Epic v. Apple litigation, with the attorneys general siding with the “Fortnite” video game company on the matter. Also Apple has finally removed Python 2 from macOS 12.3
“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.”
According to the Financial Times [paywall], the US Department of Justice also appealed last year’s verdict, claiming that the court “made multiple legal mistakes that might jeopardise effective antitrust enforcement, particularly in the digital economy” in its own submission. Also Beats Fit Pro, With similar features as AirPods Pro, is now available worldwide
According to the Department of Justice, the court construed the Sherman Act, a legislation passed in 1890 that prohibits anti-competitive activity, “narrowly and incorrectly, in ways that would leave numerous anti-competitive agreements and activities beyond their prohibitions.”
The court in the Oakland, California lawsuit found primarily against Epic last year, but both Apple and Epic Games have opted to appeal the initial judgement since neither firm was happy with the outcome. Epic Games requested that the court order Apple to support third-party App Stores, which did not occur.
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers concluded that Apple’s 15% to 30% fee charged to some app developers via its in-app payment mechanism did not violate antitrust law.
According to Reuters, in addition to the states, scholars and activist organisations chimed in through court documents that presented legal reasons in favour of Epic.
The states said in their brief that the lower court erred in ruling that a crucial antitrust rule did not apply to non-negotiable contracts Apple requires developers to sign, an argument Epic also asserted when it initially filed its appeal earlier than month.
“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 in the joint statement.
Apple, which is likely to respond in March, said on Thursday that it was sure Epic’s challenge will be rejected and that it was “dedicated to ensuring the App Store is a secure and trustworthy marketplace for customers and a wonderful opportunity for developers.”