US · appealed · ~10 min read
US state AG follow-ons after Epic v. Apple
2020–present · mobile app distribution, in-app payments, iOS developer services
After Epic sued Apple over App Store fees and rules, several state attorneys general filed similar cases. Courts mostly sided with Apple on federal antitrust claims but forced some changes to anti-steering rules. Appeals and state theories continue—Apple has not lost a nationwide monopolization verdict.
The story
iPhone apps usually must use Apple's App Store and payment system, with Apple taking up to 30% of many sales. Developers have complained for years; Epic made it a courtroom fight.
Epic intentionally broke Apple's rules in Fortnite to challenge the system. Apple removed the game. Epic sued, and Apple countersued.
State attorneys general—not just game companies—joined the battle in 2021, arguing Apple's conduct harmed consumers in their states through higher app prices and reduced innovation.
Trial produced a mixed verdict: federal antitrust claims mostly failed, but Apple lost on California's Unfair Competition Law regarding anti-steering—restrictions on telling users about outside payment options.
The Ninth Circuit in 2023 largely affirmed, keeping most of Apple's model legal under federal law while preserving some external link obligations.
States' cases were consolidated and trimmed but not entirely dead; remands and parallel consumer suits continue.
Apple has adjusted policies in the US and EU under legal pressure, yet no court has ordered a full App Store breakup or nationwide Sherman Act monopolization finding.
Why it matters
App Store economics affect every mobile developer and indirectly every smartphone user.
State AG enforcement multiplies resources against national platform policies.
Mixed Epic outcome shows monopolization claims are hard even when conduct annoys developers.
Anti-steering wins still change what apps can tell you about cheaper payment options.
US policy interacts with EU DMA rules reshaping iOS globally.
What was claimed
Apple monopolizes iOS app distribution and in-app payment processing.
30% commissions and exclusivity raise prices and block rival stores.
Anti-steering and review retaliation maintain illegal monopoly power.
States seek injunctive relief benefiting consumers and developers.
The other side
Apple says its commission funds security, privacy, and curation users want.
It argues iOS competes with Android and consoles; no monopoly exists.
Apple maintains Epic breached contract and federal law doesn't require open sideloading.
It cites ongoing policy changes as evidence of competitive pressure, not illegality.
What it means for you
Some apps may link to external payment pages with Apple's commission rules evolving.
Fortnite remains largely off iOS in the US unless deals change.
App prices won't drop automatically while appeals run.
State cases could revive theories federal courts rejected—watch remands.
No finding that Apple is an illegal monopolist nationwide—yet.
Bottom line
State AG Epic follow-ons keep App Store fights alive after a mostly Apple-friendly federal appeals path. Anti-steering changes matter, but broad monopolization claims remain unsettled.
Timeline
2020
Epic sparks war
Epic Games bypassed Apple's payment system in Fortnite, triggering removal and landmark antitrust litigation.
2021
States join fray
Attorneys general from Utah, Colorado, and others sued Apple, aligning with developer complaints on commissions and steering.
2023
Appeals court split result
Ninth Circuit largely upheld Apple's App Store model except anti-steering rules under California unfair competition law.
Ongoing
Follow-on litigation lives
States pursue remaining theories; Supreme Court petitions and remands keep iOS distribution rules contested.
Key dates
- Epic filed antitrust suit
- August 2020
- State AG complaint (Utah et al.)
- July 2021
- Ninth Circuit appeal decision
- April 2023
- Remanded issues / appeals ongoing
- 2024–ongoing
Formal snapshot
Summary: Multiple state attorneys general sued Apple over App Store policies parallel to Epic's fight, alleging monopolization of iOS app distribution and in-app payments; cases merged with private litigation and remain on appeal after mixed Ninth Circuit rulings.
Regulator / plaintiff argument: Apple's 30% commission, anti-steering rules, and rejection practices maintain an iOS distribution monopoly that harms developers and consumers across states.
Outcome: Mixed Epic/Apple Ninth Circuit outcome in 2023; state claims and consumer suits continue with appeals and remanded issues—no final nationwide liability.
Conduct tags
Laws referenced
- Sherman Act §2 — 15 U.S.C. §2
- Sherman Act §1 — 15 U.S.C. §1
- FTC Act §5 — 15 U.S.C. §45
Companies
Reader signals
0 reads · synced via local demo storage — add NEXT_PUBLIC_SUPABASE_* to enable shared likes and comments
Comments
No comments yet — start the thread.