Apple Inc. filed its reply brief in its cross-appeal against Epic Games Inc. arguing that there is nothing wrong with its “anti-steering provisions,” guidelines that supposedly curtail certain freedoms of app developers and limit their communications with app buyers. Apple argues that the district court wrongly decided the California Unfair Competition Law (UCL) issue, remarking that it is the first time a court enjoined conduct it found unfair under the UCL but reasonable under federal antitrust laws.
Featured News
DOJ Considers Reviving Collaboration Guidelines to Clarify Antitrust Rules
Mar 25, 2026 by
CPI
JetBlue Weighs Sale to Rival Airlines Amid Strategic Review
Mar 25, 2026 by
CPI
Chile Approves Joint Codelco–Anglo American Copper Project
Mar 25, 2026 by
CPI
Bernie Sanders Unveils Bill to Ban Data Centers Until Congress Passes AI Regulation
Mar 25, 2026 by
CPI
CFTC Unveils New Task Force to Focus on AI, Crypto, Prediction Markets
Mar 25, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Competitor Collaborations
Mar 26, 2026 by
CPI
Between Scylla and Charybdis – Navigating Transatlantic Antitrust Currents
Mar 26, 2026 by
Tilman Kuhn & Niklas Brüggemann
Cartel Enforcement Moves Into the Labor Market: Trends and Implications
Mar 26, 2026 by
Andreas Kafetzopoulos & Caroline Janssens
Rethinking Buy-Side Antitrust “Group Boycotts”
Mar 26, 2026 by
Craig Falls & Brendan McGuire
Positive Collaborations: The Tools Available to Competition Authorities to Encourage Beneficial Interactions Between Competitors
Mar 26, 2026 by
Rona Bar-Isaac & Thomas Withers