Epic Games’ battle against Apple and Google’s app store dominance is now in the Australian Federal Court. The two-week opening submission marks the latest chapter in a global battle over app store fees and in-app payment systems.
Similar to lawsuits filed overseas, Epic argues that Apple and Google unfairly kicked Fortnite off their platforms after the game developer implemented its own payment system, bypassing the tech giants’ fees. The Australian case was put on hold pending the outcome of Epic’s US lawsuits, where it won against Google in 2023 but lost against Apple in 2021.
The consolidated case, overseen by Justice Jonathan Beach, aims to avoid duplicating evidence. Epic’s lawyer, Neil Young KC, highlighted the case’s focus on “restrictions imposed by corporations” regarding app distribution and in-app payments.
Both Apple and Google force developers to use their payment systems, which charge fees between 15% and 30%. Epic, offering a lower 12.5% transaction fee, seeks to use its own system.
Epic isn’t seeking financial damages, but rather a court order forcing Apple and Google to loosen restrictions that led to Fortnite’s removal. To support their case, they point to Apple’s differing policies for mobile and desktop software. Unlike mobile apps, Mac developers can distribute software outside the App Store.
Young argues this inconsistency undermines Apple’s claim that non-Apple app stores pose security risks.
While acknowledging that Android allows for app downloads outside the Play Store, Young emphasizes Google’s similar restrictions on in-app payments. Developers cannot use alternative payment systems other than Google Play Billing.
Epic further highlights Apple’s contrasting policies for physical and digital goods. While developers can use third-party payment systems for physical products within their apps, they are forced to use Apple’s system for digital purchases.
This policy, according to Epic, unnecessarily restricts competition. They argue that established payment platforms like Square can handle in-app purchases for digital content, but are barred by Apple’s rules.
Young suggests this distinction simply benefits Apple, as they cannot control physical deliveries and choose to avoid that market.
The five-month-long evidence presentation is expected to be a key phase in this ongoing antitrust battle.
