Vote 2020 graphic
Everything you need to know about and expect during
the most important election of our lifetimes

In Apple and Epic’s First Hearing, Apple Wins the Right to Boot Fortnite, But Not Unreal Engine

Illustration for article titled In Apple and Epic’s First Hearing, Apple Wins the Right to Boot iFortnite/i, But Not Unreal Engine
Photo: Chris Delmas/AFP (Getty Images)

Last week, Epic filed for a temporary restraining order to prevent Apple from terminating all of Epic’s developer accounts and cutting the company off from iOS and Mac development tools, which would go into affect on Friday August 28, 2020. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California heard arguments from both sides yesterday, and eventually ruled that while Fortnite would not be returned to the App Store, Unreal Engine was safe.

Advertisement

As Bloomberg notes, in her ruling Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers wrote, “Epic Games and Apple are at liberty to litigate against each other, but their dispute should not create havoc to bystanders.” The ruling follows what the judge said at the top of the hearing about being “inclined” to deny Epic’s TRO request to put Fortnite back on the App Store with direct purchases enabled, but prevented Apple from removing Unreal Engine—a move that Epic said would cause irreparable harm not just to itself, but to all other developers who rely on Unreal Engine and the cross-platform development tools it offers to create games.

The hearing itself was entertaining theater, with both sides arguing passionately, and tempers periodically inflaming. At one point Judge Rogers muted Apple counsel to chastise him for a meandering argument that ignored her initial question. While there was plenty of legalese, everyone involved was clearly aware of just how public the hearing was and how many were tuning in via Zoom to watch. Judge Rogers even took a moment at the beginning of the hearing to address those watching via Zoom, and explain the nature of the Temporary Restraining Orders Epic had requested.

Advertisement

Quickly Apple argued that it was in the company’s best interest to not only remove Fortnite from its App Store, but given Unreal Engine and Fortnite are, in essence, made and controlled by the same company, that leaves the door open for Epic to do the same thing with Unreal Engine. However, after Judge Rogers muted Apple and demanded a yes or no answer Apple conceded that by removing Unreal Engine from the App Store, 3rd-parties, like developers, would be affected. In arguments before the judge Apple sounded almost vindictive saying all Epic needed to do to avoid catastrophe was to “put a compliment version of Fortnite” on the App Store and everything would go away. Perhaps not the best way to phrase its arguments if it wanted to avoid looking like a monopoly with undue power.

Epic Games countered that Fortnite and Unreal Engine both have separate contracts with Apple to be on the App Store, and while Epic Games did willingly breach its Fortnite contract with Apple, it did not breach its Unreal Engine contract with Apple.

In the hearing District Judge Rogers said Apple reached beyond its Fortnite contract with Epic Games, and that slamming Epic with an additional penalty, especially when it would cause no harm to Apple, looks retaliatory.

Advertisement

It’s a small victory for Epic, but it’s just one of many battles. Neither company has won the war. Today was the just first of what will likely be many future hearings in the on-going Epic verses Apple saga. “This is not something that is a slam dunk for Apple or Epic Games,” Judge Rogers said during the hearing.

The case around Fortnite remaining on the App Store is far more murky. Apple dropped a bombshell of a claim that Epic purposefully hid a code in its Fortnite app so it could “trigger” direct payments after it was approved for the App Store. Epic vehemently denied this claim.

Advertisement

The Judge also asked Epic why it couldn’t simply return to the “status quo,” or remove the direct payment method, which is a violation of Apple’s App Store guidelines. Epic argued that having all payments go through the App Store hurts its relationships with its customers because Epic does not have control over refunds—despite repeating several times throughout the hearing that Epic is not seeking monetary damages.

In contrast, the Judge said to Apple that it did not have to remove Fortnite from the App Store. Apple retorted that it did because Epic breached its contract, but it was being generous to Epic by giving it 14 days to fix its app because it values Epic’s customers. Epic’s customers are Apple’s customers, the company’s attorney said.

Advertisement

(For comparison, it’s worth noting that Apple recently blocked WordPress from updating its app on iOS because it did not include an option for in-app purchases—something that it quickly reversed.)

Epic fired back by claiming Apple forces all developers to put their apps on the App Store and then insist developers pay Apple for their “services.Epic said Apple was being “monopolistic” with this practice.

Advertisement

In the course of the hearing Judge Rogers raised a good point, a point that Epic has long touted itself: why does Apple need to charge a 30% commission rate? Why not 10% or 15%? How is the consumer benefiting? This is something Epic Games attempted to illustrate by charging customers $2 less for direct purchases via its iOS app than through the App Store itself.

Apple said consumers are free to choose if they use its products or not, and they can easily switch to another platform, be it iOS to Android or macOS to Windows. While true in practice, apps that are built for either Android/Windows or iOS/macOS are coded differently because the operating systems work differently. Maybe someone could easily play Fortnite on another platform like PC or console—Apple pointed out during the hearing that iOS in-app purchases only account for 12% of Epic’s total Fortnite revenue, a claim that Epic did not refute. But not all games can work cross-platform like Fortnite can, simply because the game is tied to a user’s account. Which is why throughout the hearing Epic’s lawyer made it clear this was a fight not just to preserve its own bottom line, but to lay siege to Apple’s perceived monopoly.

Advertisement

For now, it has a minor victory, and while Fortnite won’t be returning to the App Store any time soon, the hundreds of games relying on Unreal Engine and currently in the iOS and macOS app stores should be safe.

The next hearing is set for Sept. 28, 2020.

Advertisement

Staff Reporter, Reviews at Gizmodo. Formerly PC Gamer, Maximum PC.

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

admiralasskicker
Admiral Asskicker

It’s jsut hard for me to see what exactly Epic’s endgame here is.

INAL but....

All the talk around the case seems to be related to payment processing related to purchases made by apps installed via App store (specifically the 30% cut). I’m guessing Epic want the courts to say Apple can not force such a cut (or limit it to something less than 30%). But I would have to imagine there is a bunch of existing law around marketplaces that support the market-owner getting their cut. This seems to be a pretty standard practice across popular digital marketplaces as well. Saying that Apple cannot receive a cut for goods sole in their marketplace seems like it would fundamentally undermine the business model of the marketplace, and potentially the iPhone/iOS itself. If epic somehow did win this they would get ALL the exposure of being on the largest marketplace with almost none of the cost.

That said, there is the OTHER angle is claiming that the inability to sideload a different app store (such as an Epic Store) onto iOS/iPhone is a monopolistic practice. However it seems that this is not being talked about/is not the focus of the lawsuit. I would guess Epic might have a bit more steady ground to work with here. Neither Windows, OSX, or Android have such a restriction in place, though nearly all videogame console do. That said, even if Epic did “win” at this angle, they still take a risk of having to re-launch their game on a new launcher which has no existing install base on iOS, which may end up flopping.

Are they trying to force the first issue so Apple concedes the second?