Apple has accused Epic Games of attempting to compromise the tech giant’s business operations to inflate Epic’s revenue, according to court papers. The documents suggest Epic Games aspired to negotiate a unique deal that would enable them to skirt Apple’s standard commission rates, potentially upending Apple’s profit model and unjustifiably boosting Epic’s income.
The tech behemoth maintains that Epic Games‘ maneuvers represent a deliberate violation of their contract and regulations meant to ensure fairness among all developers. Epic Games has, on the other hand, asked a California judge to hold Apple in contempt, alleging that it violates a 2021 ruling regarding the conduct of the App Store.
Epic Games claims Apple has ignored the 2021 directive, which asked it to ease its payment solutions regulations on the App Store.
Apple and Epic’s contract dispute intensifies
The gaming firm alleges that Apple’s stringent control prevents developers from proposing alternative payment options.
US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers had earlier instructed Apple to allow developers to exploit external payment systems. This ruling, which could allow developers to circumvent regular Apple fees, has sparked widespread debate as it confronts Apple’s historic business blueprint.
Despite this, Apple revised their App Store guidelines in January, allowing developers to redirect customers to external sites for purchasing options – subject to Apple’s approval and a fee according to the revised guidelines, developers could steer their customers to an outside website for payment options if they have secured Apple’s prior approval.
However, Epic Games argues these revised policies make alternative payment methods “commercially impractical” and allege that Apple is in violation of the court’s directive. They argue that these new conditions make alternative payment methods “commercially impractical,” accusing Apple of merely appearing to fulfill the directive while actually violating it.
Apple retorts by stating it is simply following the decree. It argues that its intention is to make information on alternative purchasing methods more accessible, rather than dictating the terms for accessing Apple’s platform.
