Fortnite creator slams 'anti-competitive' Google, Apple

Restrictive contracts have fuelled profits for Google and Apple and entrenched their market dominance in breach of Australian law, the firm behind the popular Fortnite game has claimed in court.

Epic Games is suing the two tech giants in the Federal Court, claiming they engaged in anti-competitive and unconscionable conduct against those developing apps distributed through iOS and Android devices.

“Epic is not alone in harbouring dissatisfaction with the anti-competitive conduct that Apple and Google have been engaging in,” the firm’s barrister Neil Young QC said on Monday.

The firm is seeking injunctions barring Apple and Google from certain conduct as well as a number of declarations by the court.

It is not seeking any damages.

“Epic for its part has been motivated to produce system-wide changes that enhance competition for the benefit of all developers, itself included, but not just itself,” Mr Young said.

As a 61-day hearing kicked off in the Federal Court, Justice Jonathan Beach heard Google and Apple’s allegedly unlawful conduct impacted both app distribution and payments for in-app purchases.

Both tech firms claim their restrictions are required to protect the privacy and security of their users.

Apple itself engaged in “explicitly restrictive conduct” through mandatory contractual terms and a forced relationship of agency, Mr Young said.

For in-app purchases of digital content, Apple takes a commission of up to 30 per cent, the court heard.

Epic, which runs its own software business, charges a commission of 12 per cent and developers were not required to use the firm’s payment system, Mr Young said.

The barrister questioned Apple’s insistence its terms and conditions were required to protect users, pointing out these restrictions did not extend to the purchases of non-digital products and services through iOS apps.

Google also allowed Android users to download apps from more than one app store, including directly from third-party websites, Mr Young said.

“Remarkably the existence of those two alternatives in Google and Android did not cause the sky to fall in on Android, yet Apple contends the availability of such alternatives would have that consequence for iOS,” he told the court.

A developer had no choice in what payment system they could use for their iOS apps and were not even allowed to decide whether their software would be listed on the storefront or not.

These decisions were left entirely up to Apple with developers having to pay a $99 annual fee for a “limited licence” to use Apple’s software, Mr Young said.

The hearing continues.