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
Ed Tech Industry Scrambles to Fend Off Wave of Legislation to Limit Screen Time in Schools
Mar 15, 2026 by
CPI
The Hidden Security Risk Inside Your Company’s AI Tools
Mar 13, 2026 by
CPI
EU’s Largest Economies Push to Reduce Reliance on Foreign Payment Systems
Mar 12, 2026 by
CPI
Warren Presses Amazon for Answers on Pricing Practices for Government Buyers
Mar 12, 2026 by
CPI
EU Antitrust Chief Raises Concerns Over Big Tech Control of AI
Mar 12, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Behavioral Economics
Feb 22, 2026 by
CPI
Behavioral Antitrust in 2026
Feb 22, 2026 by
Maurice Stucke
Behavioral Economics in Competition Policy: Going Beyond Inertia and Framing Effects
Feb 22, 2026 by
Annemieke Tuinstra & Richard May
Agreeing to Disagree in Antitrust
Feb 22, 2026 by
Jorge Padilla
Recognizing What’s Around the Corner: Merger Control, Capabilities, and the New Nature of Potential Competition
Feb 22, 2026 by
Magdalena Kuyterink & David J. Teece