Epic won… but not really. It sounds weird, but that is the case.

Yvonne Gonzales Rogers, US District Court Judge for the Northern District of California, has ruled in favour of Apple: they are now restrained from blocking Epic Games from the Apple Developer Program and its tools based on Fortnite subverting the 30% cut that Apple receives from in-app purchases. The decision includes Unreal Engine, too, which means the judge’s ruling protects the developers that use it. The temporary restraining order is effective immediately, and it will be until the preliminary injunction’s hearing happens on September 28. However, Epic did not get everything: Fortnite continues to be blocked on Apple’s App Store, and the decision regarding it will occur in later proceedings.

Rogers agreed that Epic has made a preliminary showing of irreparable harm when it comes to Apple blocking its developer tools. These are handled by Epic’s subsidiary Epic Games International, which holds separate developer program license agreements with Apple, and these have not been breached. There was potential significant damage to both the Unreal Engine and the games industry in general.

„Apple does not persuade that it will be harmed based on any restraint on removing the developer tools. The parties’ dispute is easily cabined on the antitrust allegations concerning the App Store. It need not go farther. Apple has chosen to act severely, and by doing so, has impacted non-parties, and a third-party developer ecosystem. In this regard, the equities do weigh against Apple. Epic Games and Apple are at liberty to litigate against each other, but their dispute should not create havoc to bystanders,” Rogers wrote.

She said that Epic had not sufficiently demonstrated that it should succeed in the overall case (especially in the antitrust context), but she agrees that „serious questions do exist,” especially around Apple’s 30% fee. Tim Sweeney’s company has attempted to make the case that it should be allowed to use Apple’s platform but not have to pay this fee, instead offering direct payment options to Fortnite users.

„While the Court anticipates experts will opine that Apple’s 30% take is anti-competitive, the Court doubts that an expert would suggest a 0% alternative. Not even Epic Games gives away its products for free. [Epic] has not yet demonstrated irreparable harm [as the current situation] appears of its own making,” the judge wrote.

She noted that Epic admitted: they could quickly deactivate the hotfix that brought direct payments into Fortnite, but they don’t want to litigate while keeping their agreements with Apple, which „does not mean that ‘irreparable harm’ exists.” She also observed that the Epic-Apple feud has been „brewing for some time,” but „it is not clear why now became so urgent.” She also noted that the dispute was triggered by Epic and its pre-made plan, including the marketing campaign against Apple, which resulted in the court being presented with „numerous internet postings and comments” from Fortnite players. „The showing is not sufficient to conclude that these considerations outweigh the general public interest in requiring private parties to adhere to their contractual agreements or in resolving business disputes through normal, albeit expedited, proceedings,” Rogers wrote.

Last week, Rogers has previously presided over a similar case and ruled in favour of Apple. The case is far from over, though…

Source: Gamesindustry

Please support our page theGeek.games on Patreon, so we can continue to write you the latest gaming, movie and tech news and reviews as an independent magazine.
Become a Patron!