The panel affirmed the district court’s denial of antitrust liability and its corresponding rejection of Epic’s illegality defense to Apple’s breach of contract counter-claim. The panel affirmed except for the district court’s ruling respecting attorney fees, where it reversed and remanded for further proceedings.
in favor of Epic on its UCL claim against Epic on Apple’s claim for breach of contract and against Apple on its claim for attorney fees. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part the district court’s judgment, after a bench trial, against Epic Games on its Sherman Act claims for restraint of trade, tying, and monopoly maintenance against Apple, Inc. Apple counter-sued for breach of contract and indemnification for its attorney fees arising from this litigation.
Epic contends that Apple acted unlawfully by restricting app distribution on iOS devices to Apple’s App Store, requiring in-app purchases on iOS devices to use Apple’s in-app payment processor, and limiting the ability of app developers to communicate the availability of alternative payment options to iOS device users. pursuant to the Sherman Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL).
0 kommentar(er)
