35 U.S. state attorneys general support Epic Games' lawsuit against Apple

IT House reported on January 30 that the White House and 35 U.S. states have submitted "amicus curiae" briefings in support of Epic Games' antitrust appeal against Apple.

Everyone basically agrees that the original judge made a legal mistake in deciding how a key antitrust law would apply to Apple ...

background

Epic Games sued Apple for not allowing it to use its own payment platform, but instead had to make in-app purchases through the App Store, from which Apple took a 30 percent fee. The court ruled that Apple must allow developers to direct app users to external payment platforms, but held that the company did not meet legal tests deemed monopolies — and therefore did not have to allow competitive app stores for iOS apps.

Both Apple and Epic Games appealed different aspects of the ruling.

Epic Games' antitrust appeal

Epic appealed the App Store's ruling that it was not a monopoly, arguing that there was no other way for developers to sell iPhone apps than through Apple.

Whenever a case involving a public interest is heard, it is common for a third party not directly involved in the dispute to want a voice. The law allows them to submit "amicus curiae" briefings – to make recommendations to judges as amicus curiae.

About 35 U.S. states have banded together to file an amicus curiae pleadings in favor of Epic — arguing that Apple does have a monopoly as a seller of iOS apps.

"The 35 U.S. states, led by Utah and Microsoft, formally support Epic's appeal by filing an amicus curiae brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.

These files are more than just a "good choice". This support is critical [...]

The state attorneys generals who support Epic here ("state attorneys generals") are essentially the people who sued Google with Epic in the Northern District of California. Led by Utah, it includes Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, and the District of Columbia (in alphabetical order). Florida, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah (submitter), Vermont, and Washington. ”

The White House filed a separate defense for the United States. This claims on the cover that it "does not support either party" and simply expresses its views on the relevant law. However, its content is clearly in favor of Epic's position.

The Sherman Act is an important provision in U.S. antitrust legislation and has two parts. Article 1 stipulates that there can be no agreement between companies that distort competition (for example, all companies agree to charge the same price for something). Section II stipulates that a dominant company may not take unilateral actions aimed at gaining a monopoly position on its own.

The federal court held that section 2 should apply to Apple, and the court should judge the iPhone manufacturer's behavior on the basis of this standard.