In the ongoing legal battle between Epic Games and Apple, the former has vehemently opposed the latter’s demand for a staggering $73 million in legal fees, calling it an “overreach” by the tech giant.
Epic Games, the creator of the immensely popular game “Fortnite,” filed a response to Apple’s request for legal fees in the contentious antitrust dispute. The clash centers on Apple’s control over transactions within iOS applications and its distribution policies. While the U.S. Supreme Court recently declined appeals from both parties, it upheld a decision that mandated certain changes to Apple’s App Store while rejecting the majority of Epic’s claims.
In a court filing on Friday, Epic urged U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to reject Apple’s demand for reimbursement of legal costs. The gaming company argued that prevailing defendants, like Apple, should not be entitled to recover attorney compensation for successfully defending against antitrust claims.
Related: Epic Games v. Apple: A Case Summary
Both Epic Games and Apple enlisted the services of prestigious law firms, including Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Weil, Gotshal & Manges for Apple, and Cravath, Swaine & Moore for Epic. Despite the high stakes and substantial legal resources involved, Epic declined to comment on the matter, while Apple did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Epic Games challenged Apple’s $73.4 million fee demand, contending that it was excessive. The gaming company asserted that Apple should be entitled to a much smaller amount, primarily related to Epic’s breach of Apple’s developer agreement. Epic clarified that it did not contest the breach-of-contract claim, which was not a litigated issue during the proceedings.
The battle between Epic Games and Apple underscores broader concerns about the power dynamics within the tech industry, particularly regarding app distribution and marketplace dominance. The outcome of this legal dispute could have significant implications for both companies and the broader app ecosystem.
Source: Reuters
Featured News
Google and South Carolina Clash Over State Records Demand
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Telefonica Germany Teams Up with Amazon Web Services to Migrate 5G Customers
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Judge Grants $7.4 Million Settlement in Pork Price-Fixing Case
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Wilson Sonsini Bolsters Antitrust and Competition Practice with Key Partner Returns
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
EU to Scrutinize Telecom Italia’s Network Sale to KKR
May 8, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Economics of Criminal Antitrust
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Navigating Economic Expert Work in Criminal Antitrust Litigation
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
The Increased Importance of Economics in Cartel Cases
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
A Law and Economics Analysis of the Antitrust Treatment of Physician Collective Price Agreements
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI
Information Exchange In Criminal Antitrust Cases: How Economic Testimony Can Tip The Scales
Apr 19, 2024 by
CPI