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
Ribera Calls for Reform in EU Competition Policies
Dec 10, 2024 by
CPI
DirecTV Urges Second Circuit to Revive Antitrust Lawsuit Against Nexstar
Dec 9, 2024 by
CPI
Omnicom and Interpublic Unite in $13.25B Deal: Big Tech Competition Heats Up
Dec 9, 2024 by
CPI
Federal Ruling Highlights DOJ’s Push Against Algorithmic Collusion in Antitrust Cases
Dec 9, 2024 by
CPI
Judge’s Decision on Kroger-Albertsons Merger Expected Soon
Dec 9, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – Moats & Entrenchment
Nov 29, 2024 by
CPI
Assessing the Potential for Antitrust Moats and Trenches in the Generative AI Industry
Nov 29, 2024 by
Allison Holt, Sushrut Jain & Ashley Zhou
How SEP Hold-up Can Lead to Entrenchment
Nov 29, 2024 by
Jay Jurata, Elena Kamenir & Christie Boyden
The Role of Moats in Unlocking Economic Growth
Nov 29, 2024 by
CPI
Overcoming Moats and Entrenchment: Disruptive Innovation in Generative AI May Be More Successful than Regulation
Nov 29, 2024 by
Simon Chisholm & Charlie Whitehead