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
Mamdani Taps Former FTC Chair Lina Khan for Key New York Economic Development Role
Jul 22, 2026 by
CPI
EU Approves Paramount’s Warner Bros. Acquisition After Distribution Concessions
Jul 22, 2026 by
CPI
European Regulators Scrutinize $20 Billion Offshore Engineering Tie-Up
Jul 22, 2026 by
CPI
South Korea Faces Record Antitrust Case as KFTC Weighs $7.7 Billion Bond-Market Penalties
Jul 22, 2026 by
CPI
TikTok US Security Chief to Testify Before House Panel on China Concerns
Jul 22, 2026 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Antitrust Compliance
Jul 20, 2026 by
CPI
Your Antitrust Compliance Program: A Strong Voice in Your Defense
Jul 20, 2026 by
Joe Murphy
Antitrust Compliance for the AI Pricing Era
Jul 20, 2026 by
Alejandra Uria & Andre Geverola
Race to Report: Antitrust Leniency in the Whistleblower Era
Jul 20, 2026 by
Brian R. Faerstein & Nicole H. Sprinzen
Antitrust-By-Design: Competition Compliance in Digital Markets
Jul 20, 2026 by
Marcos Drummond Malvar, Gabriela Costa Carvalho Forsman & Luciana Mendes