This is the new MLex platform. Existing customers should continue to use the existing MLex platform until migrated.
For any queries, please contact Customer Services or your Account Manager. Dismiss

Apple fails to account for Epic decision, plaintiffs in monopoly case say

( September 2, 2025, 22:32 GMT | Official Statement) -- MLex Summary: Apple's motion for summary judgment against claims it monopolized the App Store through supracompetitive commissions on all sales fails under governing law established in Epic Games v. Apple, Inc., where it defended its walled-garden model, plaintiffs said. Apple's claim that the plaintiffs have not accounted for two-sided app distribution mimics arguments rejected in Epic, and similarly, Apple's claim that "its conduct is a lawful design choice immune from scrutiny also repeats an argument rejected in Epic and Epic 1 under the rule of reason," plaintiffs said in their opposition to Apple's motion for summary judgment filed to the Northern District of California.See attached document: ...

Prepare for tomorrow’s regulatory change, today

MLex identifies risk to business wherever it emerges, with specialist reporters across the globe providing exclusive news and deep-dive analysis on the proposals, probes, enforcement actions and rulings that matter to your organization and clients, now and in the longer term.


Know what others in the room don’t, with features including:

  • Daily newsletters for Antitrust, M&A, Trade, Data Privacy & Security, Technology, AI and more
  • Custom alerts on specific filters including geographies, industries, topics and companies to suit your practice needs
  • Predictive analysis from expert journalists across North America, the UK and Europe, Latin America and Asia-Pacific
  • Curated case files bringing together news, analysis and source documents in a single timeline

Experience MLex today with a 14-day free trial.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Click here to login

Documents

Related Sections