Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic Games (mcvuk.com)- Australian Federal Court finds Apple & Google misused market power.
- Epic Games wins partial victory in long-running antitrust battle.
- Class actions could see consumers, developers claim hundreds of millions.
- Ruling may reshape app store policies, boosting competition and innovation.
In a landmark ruling, Australia’s Federal Court has found that Apple and Google engaged in anti-competitive conduct through the way they operated their app stores — a partial but significant victory for Fortnite developer Epic Games and millions of Australian consumers.
As reported by abc.net.au, Justice Jonathan Beach ruled that both tech giants misused their market power, breaching section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act, by restricting competition in app distribution and payment systems. The judgment paves the way for two class actions representing more than 15 million consumers and 150,000 app developers to seek potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in compensation for inflated prices and commissions on digital content.
“The Epic Games Store and Fortnite will come to iOS in Australia! This is a WIN for developers and consumers,” Epic Games said in a post on X.
JOIN US TO STAY UPDATED ON YOUR FAVORITE MESSENGER APP!
The 2,000-page ruling, not yet publicly released in full, follows years of global litigation by Epic against the app store policies of Apple and Google. While the court rejected allegations of “unconscionable conduct,” it agreed that both companies’ practices substantially lessened competition by forcing developers to use their in-house payment systems, which charged commissions of 15–30%.
Apple’s Restrictions Under Scrutiny
The court found Apple’s policy of exclusively distributing apps via its App Store — and blocking “sideloading” or direct downloads — limited competition. Justice Beach noted that while Apple cited security concerns, its rules also had a clear anti-competitive effect.
“The fact that Apple has imposed those centralised app distribution systems for the purpose of protecting security does not entail that there is not also a substantial anti-competitive purpose involved,” Justice Beach said.
Apple welcomed the rejection of some Epic claims but disputed other findings.
“Apple faces fierce competition in every market where we operate,” the company said in a statement, maintaining that its commissions have been reduced for many developers and that some pay no fees at all.
Google’s Practices Challenged
Similarly, the court ruled that Google’s contractual restrictions, control over the Android ecosystem, and mandatory use of its billing system for Play Store purchases also harmed competition.
Google said it disagreed with aspects of the decision.
“We disagree with the court’s characterisation of our billing policies and practices, as well as its findings regarding some of our historical partnerships,” a spokesperson said, while noting the court rejected Epic’s demand to integrate competing app stores directly into Google Play.
Broader Implications and Next Steps
The compensation amount — potentially in the hundreds of millions — will be determined in a separate hearing. Class action lawyer Joel Phibbs of Phi Finney McDonald said the ruling could reshape digital markets in Australia, leading to lower prices, more competition, and greater innovation.
The decision comes amid mounting global scrutiny of tech giants’ app store dominance. In the US, courts have already found Google in violation of antitrust laws and ordered Apple to allow developers to direct users to outside payment options.
Australia’s consumer watchdog, the ACCC, has called for a digital platform regulatory regime, warning that the most powerful tech companies engage in practices that distort competition, including exclusivity agreements and denying interoperability.
ⓘ As part of our ongoing support for startups and SMEs, LAFFAZ Media publishes feature and resource articles that may include references and links to external websites. These inclusions are selected at our editorial discretion to provide valuable information to our readers. LAFFAZ Media does not control, endorse, or assume responsibility for the content or practices of external websites. For more details, please refer to our Terms and Conditions.
