Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 SEPTEMBER 2020

Market Intelligence Thought Leadership Award Winner

UPDATE: Judge Urges Apple And Epic To Bring Antitrust Case Before A Jury

WH Partners
WH Partners
Contributor
WH Partners

WH Partners

We are a law firm with a strong focus on assisting businesses fuelling the digital economy. We have...

View firm profile
Explore more from WH Partners

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has remarked on the high possibility that this legal dispute becomes a landmark judgment, one which tests the frontiers of antitrust law.

MaltaAntitrust/Competition Law
Joseph F. Borg
Joseph F. Borg
Jessica Napier
Jessica Napier
Author LinkedIn connections

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has remarked on the high possibility that this legal dispute becomes a landmark judgment, one which tests the frontiers of antitrust law.

This is the sixth update in relation to the ongoing legal dispute concerning Epic and Apple. Should you wish to refer to our previous articles, they are accessible here, here, here, here and here respectively.

Throughout the duration of a three-hour video conference hearing, Epic and Apple presented their respective arguments. Epic continues to maintain that Apple's unwillingness to allow for the use of its alternate payment systems is anti-competitive and monopolistic in its nature. The federal judge, presiding over this hearing, repeatedly faulted the creator of popular video game Fortnite on the tactics adopted in its case against Apple, but more specifically against the App Store.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Same NPC, Different Rules: How A Player’s Age Changes Their Responsibilities Under The AI Act

The EU AI Act's Article 50 introduces age-dependent disclosure requirements for AI-powered NPCs in video games, creating a new compliance framework where the same generative character may require explicit labeling in one context but not another. This provision intersects with emerging consumer protection regulations and child safety standards, fundamentally changing how gaming studios must assess their AI implementations based on actual player demographics rather than abstract user models.
PolandTechnology
WH Partners
WH Partners
Article

EU AI Act: The Latest Compliance Checkpoint

The EU AI Act's transparency obligations became enforceable on 2 August 2026, requiring providers and deployers of AI systems to clearly disclose AI-generated content, inform users of AI interactions, and label deepfakes. Organizations must now navigate new compliance requirements including disclosure obligations for emotion recognition systems and content on matters of public interest, while facing potential fines of up to €15 million or 3% of global turnover for non-compliance.
European UnionTechnology
WH Partners
WH Partners