Abstract
On 10 September 2021, judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers (YGR) of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California released her judgment in the Epic v Apple case. In doing so, she decided (at least at first instance) one of the most important battles that currently rage in the war around Apple’s restrictions of app developers.
As most antitrust cases, Epic v Apple centers around three pillars: defining the relevant market, establishing the defendant’s market power on that market, and assessing anticompetitive conduct. In what follows, I walk the reader through the essentials of each pillar. However, be warned that in summarizing a 180-page judgment, a lot of detail inevitably gets lost.
As most antitrust cases, Epic v Apple centers around three pillars: defining the relevant market, establishing the defendant’s market power on that market, and assessing anticompetitive conduct. In what follows, I walk the reader through the essentials of each pillar. However, be warned that in summarizing a 180-page judgment, a lot of detail inevitably gets lost.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 2-6 |
Number of pages | 5 |
Journal | Competition Law Insight |
Volume | 20 |
Issue number | 10 |
Publication status | Published - 17 Dec 2021 |
Externally published | Yes |