IPMojo

BOOK AN APPOINTMENT

Competition Law

by

Epic Won the Battle. Now Developers Want Their Refunds.

When Epic Games went head-to-head with Apple, the Federal Court found that Apple misused its market power by locking iOS developers into the App Store and its payment system. That was big. But the Anthony v Apple class action takes it a step further: what if Apple has been overcharging Australian developers and consumers for years?

From liability to dollars

In Epic v Apple [2025] FCA 900, Justice Beach held that Apple’s restrictions substantially lessened competition in two markets:

  1. iOS app distribution; and

  2. iOS in-app payment solutions.

That case was about liability — whether Apple broke the law.

In Anthony v Apple Inc [2025] FCA 902, the Court applied those findings in the context of a class action by developers and users. This time, the question wasn’t just “did Apple misuse its power?” but “what should Apple have charged if competition had been allowed?”

The counterfactual commission

Apple famously takes up to 30% of in-app revenue. The class action alleges that this cut was inflated by Apple’s anti-competitive restrictions.

Justice Beach accepted that the key issue was whether commissions exceeded the “counterfactual” level — i.e. the rate that would have prevailed in a competitive market.

That’s not just a legal puzzle. It’s an economic modelling exercise: estimating what rival app stores and payment processors would have charged, and how Apple’s fees distorted prices across the app ecosystem.

Why this matters

  • Developers: If successful, they may recover damages for inflated commissions they’ve paid over years. That could mean real money back into the hands of Australian app makers.

  • Consumers: If commissions were inflated, those costs were often passed on through higher app and in-app purchase prices. Compensation claims could extend to end users.

  • Apple (and Google): The damages bill could be eye-watering. Liability findings are one thing; being ordered to pay back billions is another.

A coordinated strategy

Justice Beach emphasised that his reasons in Anthony v Apple should be read together with Epic v Apple and Epic v Google. This isn’t three random cases — it’s a coordinated litigation front against the app store model.

First, establish liability (Epic).
Then, pursue compensation (Anthony).
Finally, broaden the net (Epic v Google).

The bigger picture

Globally, regulators and courts are converging on the same theme: Apple and Google can’t use security or convenience as a shield for overcharging.

Australia’s twist? Class actions have a way of turning abstract competition law into concrete refunds.

⚖️ The takeaway

Epic v Apple broke open the wall. Anthony v Apple asks whether Apple should hand back the gold it’s been collecting inside.

This isn’t just another round in the same fight — it’s the damages phase of the app store wars. And it could hit closer to home for Australian developers and users than anything Epic ever fought for.

by

Epic Down Under: How Australia Took a Bite Out of Apple’s Walled Garden

When Epic Games took on Apple in the US and Europe, the headlines practically wrote themselves – it was billed as a David-and-Goliath showdown between the Fortnite maker and the Cupertino colossus. Now, the same fight has reached Australian shores — and the Federal Court has bitten into Apple’s walled garden.

When Epic Games v Apple erupted in the US in 2020, Fortnite, the global gaming juggernaut, had been punted from the App Store after Epic tried to sneak in its own cheaper payment system. Cue a legal battle royale over whether Apple’s “walled garden” was innovation, exploitation, or both.

Fast forward to August 2025, and the fight has gone local. In Epic Games, Inc v Apple Inc [2025] FCA 900, Justice Beach of the Federal Court handed down a sprawling 6,347-paragraph judgment — and while not everything went Epic’s way, the headline is clear: Apple misused its market power under s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).

Australia has officially joined the global chorus questioning how far Big Tech’s gatekeeping power can go.

The legal frame: two markets, one gatekeeper

Epic’s case hinged on market definition — the first battlefield of any competition law fight. Epic said there were two relevant markets:

  1. The iOS app distribution market – how apps get onto iPhones and iPads.

  2. The iOS in-app payment solutions market – how digital content is paid for inside apps.

Apple argued for something broader: a market for “app transactions”, with plenty of alternatives. Justice Beach wasn’t buying it. He sided with Epic’s narrower framing, recognising that Apple was the sole gatekeeper in both distribution and in-app digital payments.

From there, the logic snowballed: Apple’s rules preventing sideloading (direct downloads) and banning alternative payment systems substantially lessened competition. That, in turn, triggered contraventions of s 46 (misuse of market power) and s 47 (exclusive dealing).

Epic didn’t get everything it wanted — some claims under s 21 of the ACL (unconscionable conduct) fell flat, and Apple’s ban on rival app stores inside the App Store was upheld. But the central wins are seismic.

Apple’s defence: “But security!”

Apple leaned heavily on security as a justification. Its argument: a centralised, curated App Store keeps users safe from malware, fraud, and scams.

Justice Beach accepted there were genuine security benefits — Apple’s model really does provide higher baseline quality and safety compared to the Wild West of sideloaded apps.

However, crucially, he ruled that security doesn’t trump competition law. A legitimate purpose (protecting users) doesn’t erase the anti-competitive effects (locking out rivals) – or as the Court put it: “The existence of a security purpose says little about the effect or likely effect of Apple’s restrictive conduct in terms of competition questions.”

What this means for…

Developers

Epic signalled it would jump into iOS distribution if given the chance.

Others will follow. Think Spotify, payment processors like Stripe, or even local players offering niche app stores.

The judgment cracks open a door that’s been locked since 2008.

Consumers

If remedies flow, users could see lower prices and more choice.

Developers paying Apple’s 30% cut have long argued they’re forced to inflate in-app purchase prices.

Alternatives could push those costs down — though don’t expect Apple to give up without a fight.

Regulators

The decision aligns with the ACCC’s Digital Platform Services Inquiry, which has repeatedly flagged Apple’s and Google’s control over app ecosystems.

Australia may now move closer to Europe’s Digital Markets Act, which mandates interoperability and alternative app stores.

Apple

Even if remedies are still pending, the finding of liability alone is a reputational hit.

Apple’s “we know best” stance has always traded on consumer trust. Now it must reckon with courts telling it that choice matters too.

The global context

This ruling doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It follows:

  • The US: where Epic’s case against Apple produced a mixed bag — Apple largely won at trial, but Epic clawed back some ground on appeal.

  • The EU: where the Digital Markets Act forced Apple to allow rival app stores and alternative payment methods in early 2024.

  • South Korea and Japan: already experimenting with app store regulation.

Australia is now firmly in the mix. What started as a Fortnite scuffle is becoming a global test of whether digital gatekeepers can keep locking the gates.

Where to next?

Justice Beach has reserved questions of relief for another hearing.

That means the really juicy part — what remedies Apple will face in Australia — is still to come. Options range from structural orders (sideloading must be allowed) to behavioural remedies (Apple must permit rival payment providers).

Whatever the outcome, one thing is clear: the walled garden isn’t as impregnable as Apple thought – and Epic may have just turned its legal battle royale into a global trend of regulatory respawn.

⚖️ The takeaway

For digital lawyers, regulators, and anyone building on someone else’s platform: this case is a reminder that market power is never just a tech problem — it’s a legal one.

When innovation, competition, and consumer choice collide, courts are willing to get out the pickaxe.