The Australian court has ruled in favor of Epic Games in its antitrust lawsuit against Apple, ordering the company to permit sideloading of apps onto iPhones and allow third-party payment options.
The full 900-page judgment was recently published, detailing the court’s reasoning and prompting Apple to challenge the decision on the grounds of user privacy and security.
The central dispute over market definition
The central legal argument in the case was the definition of the relevant market for assessing Apple’s dominance. Apple argued that the market should be defined broadly as either all smartphones or all apps, where it holds a minority share globally and is not a monopoly.
The Australian judge, however, agreed with regulators and adopted a narrower definition: the market for iOS apps specifically. Within this market, Apple maintains 100% control over distribution, as nearly every app must go through its App Store. This gatekeeper role was the basis for the antitrust claims.
Apple’s response and the court’s prohibitions
Apple has stated it will challenge the ruling, particularly the market definition that it says has been rejected by other courts.
“Apple does not have a monopoly position in Australia or in any market around the world. We strongly disagree with many decisions in this case, including an improper market definition that has been rejected by other courts. We will continue to seek an outcome that respects our intellectual property and protects the safe, secure experience that consumers and developers have come to expect from the App Store.”
While the ruling sided with Epic, the judge did not issue specific mandates for Apple to follow. Instead, the court outlined actions Apple is now prohibited from taking, such as blocking sideloading or alternative payments. The court did affirm Apple’s right to receive compensation for its intellectual property and upheld its ban on third-party app stores, distinguishing them from the sideloading of individual apps.
Security claims challenged by evidence
Apple’s primary defense is that its centralized App Store review process is essential for user security. The company stated it rejected nearly 2 million app submissions last year for violations ranging from privacy breaches to deceptive practices.
The court countered this argument by referencing the European Union’s Digital Markets Act, which has already required Apple to enable sideloading and alternative payments in Europe. The implementation of these changes has shown that such adjustments are technically feasible without widespread security disruptions.
Evidence from the App Store also challenged Apple’s claims of providing a perfectly secure environment.
- A 2021 study found that scam apps accounted for almost 2% of the top-grossing titles, costing users approximately $50 million.
- A few months ago, an Apple-approved dating app exposed the private chats and personal data of tens of thousands of women.
The lawsuit, which began in 2020 after Apple removed Epic’s game Fortnite for bypassing its 30% commission, adds to the global scrutiny of Apple’s App Store policies.
