Game Over or Just Beginning? Epic v. Apple and the Future of Digital Antitrust

On August 13, 2020, millions of Fortnite players opened the game on their iPhones and found something unexpected: a cheaper way to buy in-game currency. [1] V-Bucks, which bypassed Apple’s App Store payment system. Within hours, Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, citing a clear violation of their rules. [2] Epic Games, the studio behind Fortnite, was ready; filing a lawsuit against Apple, alleging that Apple’s tightly controlled App Store constituted an unlawful monopoly. [3] What began as a scuffle over in-game purchases quickly escalated into one of the most closely watched antitrust battles of the digital age.

The case, Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., highlighted the tension between Big Tech’s walled gardens and developers’ desire for open ecosystems. [4] Apple has long defended its 30% commission on in-app purchases and its prohibition of alternative payment methods as essential to consumer security, privacy, and intellectual property protection. [5] Epic argued that these restrictions stifled innovation, inflated prices, and limited consumer choice. [6] The litigation asked a deceptively simple question: is Apple running a legitimate business model fair to app developers? 

In district court, Epic pushed claims under the Sherman Act, arguing that Apple unlawfully maintained monopoly power over iOS app distribution and in-app payments. [7] Epic portrayed the App Store as a closed market in which Apple enforced terms for developers who had no alternative path to reach iPhone users. [8] Apple framed the App Store as part of a broader, competitive digital marketplace including Android devices, PCs, and gaming consoles. [9] By Apple’s logic, its tight control was not about monopolization but about preserving the integrity of its ecosystem.

By preventing sideloading—downloading from places not owned by Apple—and requiring strict vetting of apps, Apple insists it shields consumers from malware, fraud, and exploitative practices. [10] Apple says the 30% commission sustains this infrastructure and funds the tools that developers rely on. [11] Including beta testing platforms and security programs. [12] 

From this perspective, Apple’s “walled garden” is not anticompetitive but pro-consumer. The very features Epic characterizes as restrictive, Apple portrays as necessary in a digital economy rife with privacy risks and cyberattacks.13 The company frames its model as a trade-off: developers must pay to play, but in exchange, users get a safer, more reliable experience.14

Epic painted a starkly different picture. They argued that in blocking developers from offering cheaper alternatives, Apple effectively taxed innovation and insulated itself from competition. [15] Epic emphasized that developers bear the cost of Apple’s commission, which can translate into higher prices for consumers and fewer resources for creators to reinvest into their products. [16]

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’s 2021 decision reflected the complexity of these arguments. The court rejected Epic’s core claim: Apple was not deemed a monopolist under federal antitrust law. [17] Epic failed to show that Apple’s practices constituted an unreasonable restraint of trade. The court also ruled that Apple’s anti-steering provisions—which prevented developers from directing users to outside payment methods—violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. [18] Apple was ordered to allow developers to include links or buttons to alternative payment systems. [19]

Why should non-gamers care about a dispute between two tech giants? Because the case carries implications far beyond the gaming world. Digital marketplaces, from app stores to e-commerce platforms, have increasingly become the gatekeepers of modern economic life. [20] If companies like Apple can control the terms of access to their ecosystems without meaningful antitrust checks, the balance of power may tilt permanently toward corporations rather than creators or consumers. At the same time, if courts aggressively intervene, they risk undermining business models that have produced stable, secure, and widely trusted platforms.

Supporters of Apple warn that weakening its control could expose users to greater risks and fragment the iOS experience. They argue that security and privacy cannot be taken for granted and that Apple’s stewardship is a feature, not a bug. [21] In their view, antitrust law should not punish success or discourage companies from building integrated platforms that consumers voluntarily choose.

Critics, however, argue that Apple’s policies exemplify digital rent-seeking: extracting value not through innovation but through control. [22] They see the App Store as a bottleneck that allows Apple to dictate terms, suppress rivals, and limit consumer autonomy. [23] 

Epic Games v. Apple did not deliver a decisive victory for either side, but it set the stage for future battles over digital gatekeeping. [24] As lawmakers and regulators worldwide grapple with how to regulate Big Tech, the case provides a blueprint for the stakes involved.

The central question remains: should digital marketplaces operate as closed gardens curated by corporate gatekeepers, or as open fields where innovation can flourish boundless? Courts, policymakers, and consumers alike will continue to wrestle with this tension. What is clear is that the outcome will not only affect developers and tech giants but will also shape the digital experiences of millions of users worldwide.

Epic’s rebellion against Apple’s App Store rules may not have toppled the garden walls, but it cracked the foundation. In an era where our lives increasingly unfold through digital platforms, that debate is only just beginning.

---

Sources

1. Stash.gg. “Apple vs Epic Games Recap: Everything You Need to Know,” 2025. https://www.stash.gg/glossary/apple-vs-epic-games.

2. EPIC GAMES, INC. V. APPLE, INC., No. 21-16506 (9th Cir. 2023).

3. ‌Ibid.

4. Quimbee. “Epic Games, Inc. V. Apple, Inc.,” June 12, 2023. https://www.quimbee.com/cases/epic-games-inc-v-apple-inc.

5. ‌Ibid.

6. EPIC GAMES, INC. V. APPLE, INC., No. 21-16506 (9th Cir. 2023), pg. 74.

7. National Archives. “Sherman Anti-Trust Act (1890),” September 9, 2021. https://www.archives.gov/milestone-documents/sherman-anti-trust-act.

8. ‌EPIC GAMES, INC. V. APPLE, INC., No. 21-16506 (9th Cir. 2023).

9. Jamison, Mark, Jakub Tęcza, and Peter Wang. “Do App Stores Impact Competition by Entering Their Own Markets?” The Center for Growth and Opportunity, 2023. https://www.thecgo.org/research/do-app-stores-impact-competition-by-entering-their-own-market/.

10. ‌Twingate.com. “What Is Side-Loading? How It Works & Examples | Twingate,” 2024. https://www.twingate.com/blog/glossary/side-loading.

11. EPIC GAMES, INC. V. APPLE, INC., No. 21-16506 (9th Cir. 2023).

12. ‌Froehlich, Andrew. “Walled Garden.” Search Security. TechTarget, 2021. https://www.techtarget.com/searchsecurity/definition/walled-garden.

13. ‌Ibid.

14. EPIC GAMES, INC. V. APPLE, INC., No. 21-16506 (9th Cir. 2023).

15. Ibid. pg. 20

16. Sitra-new. “Gatekeeping in the Digital Age - Sitra-New,” October 13, 2025. https://www.sitra.fi/en/publication/gatekeeping-in-the-digital-age/.

17. ‌EPIC GAMES, INC. V. APPLE, INC., No. 21-16506 (9th Cir. 2023).

18. Winston & Strawn - What is the California Unfair Competition Law? | Winston & Strawn Law Glossary. “What Is the California Unfair Competition Law?” Winston & Strawn LLP, 2025. https://www.winston.com/en/legal-glossary/california-unfair-competition-law.

19. ‌EPIC GAMES, INC. V. APPLE, INC., No. 21-16506 (9th Cir. 2023).

20. Hewish, Chris. “Game Changer: What the Epic v. Apple Ruling Means for the App Economy.” Forbes, May 29, 2025. https://www.forbes.com/councils/forbestechcouncil/2025/05/29/game-changer-what-the-epic-v-apple-ruling-means-for-the-app-economy/.

21. ‌School, Stanford Law. “Stanford’s Mark Lemley on Epic Games Case against Apple | Stanford Law School.” Stanford Law School, May 10, 2021. https://law.stanford.edu/2021/05/10/stanfords-mark-lemley-on-epic-games-case-against-apple/.

22. ‌MacCarthy, Mark. “The Epic-Apple App Case Reveals Monopoly Power and the Need for New Regulatory Oversight.” Brookings, June 2, 2021. https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-epic-apple-app-case-reveals-monopoly-power-and-the-need-for-new-regulatory-oversight/.

23. ‌Ibid. 

24. ‌EPIC GAMES, INC. V. APPLE, INC., No. 21-16506 (9th Cir. 2023).