← All Authorities
United States abuse of dominanceanti competitive agreements

Epic Games Inc v Apple Inc

67 F.4th 946 (9th Cir. 2023)
JurisdictionUnited States
CourtUS Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Year2023
StatusBinding authority

Summary

Apple held not a monopolist under Sherman Act s 2 in mobile gaming transactions market, but anti-steering provisions violated California Unfair Competition Law.

Key Principle

Apple not a monopolist under Sherman Act s 2 in gaming transactions; but anti-steering provisions violate California UCL

Area of Law

competition

Related Cases

ACCC v Pacific National Pty Ltd [2020] FCAFC 77

Full Federal Court considered the test for substantially lessening competition under s.50 CCA in the context of a rail freight acquisition.

ACCC v Yazaki Corporation (2018) 262 CLR 1

HCA upheld record cartel penalties for wire harness market conduct, affirming that penalties must deter contravener and others, considering nature, extent, and duration of cartel.

ACCC v Pfizer Australia Pty Ltd [2018] FCAFC 78

Full Federal Court considered whether Pfizer's patent evergreening strategy in the pharmaceutical market constituted misuse of market power under s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Epic Games Inc v Apple Inc and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Epic Games Inc v Apple Inc