A PYMNTS Company

Epic Games Pushes Back Against Apple’s $73 Million Legal Fee Demand

 |  February 21, 2024

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