Apple/Google Designated as "Market Abuse": The Two Doors of "Distribution and Payment" Opened by Epic

"Australian Federal Court Recognizes 'Abuse of Market Power' by Apple and Google—A New Chapter in the Fortnite War"

August 12, 2025 (local time), the Australian Federal Court ruled that Apple and Google's operations regarding app distribution and in-app purchases violate Section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act (CCA)—in simpler terms, it constitutes "abuse of market power." The lawsuit was filed by Epic Games, the creator of 'Fortnite.' While the verdict is not a "complete victory," it is a partial victory that shakes the core of the ecosystem and significantly impacts the ongoing platform debate worldwide.The GuardianReuters

What Was Recognized: The Core is "Distribution and Payment"

The court found that Apple and Google substantially restricted app distribution channels and in-app payments, significantly reducing competition. The prohibition of sideloading on iOS and the enforced use of their own payment systems by both companies were particularly problematic. On Google's side, initiatives like **"Project Hug"** aimed at retaining major developers were also noted to have distorted the competitive environment.The Guardian

However, some claims, such as Epic's assertion of "unconscionable" conduct under consumer law, were dismissed, indicating that the judgment is not "black and white" but rather has "shades of gray." Of the approximately 2,000 pages of the judgment, only the summary is currently publicly available, with the full release and detailed analysis yet to come.AP NewsAppleInsider Forums

Immediate Impact: Fortnite's "Return" Announcement and the Door to Class Actions

Epic promptly announced its intention to **"bring Fortnite and the Epic Games Store back to iOS in Australia."** Although the implementation schedule is undecided, there is a significant possibility that the distribution and payment restrictions on iOS, which have been in place since 2017, may be partially lifted.The VergeEngadget

More importantly, the ruling gives a "tailwind" to two class actions. Up to 15 million consumers and 150,000 developers could seek compensation for past "overcharges" on prices and fees. While the amount will be determined separately, if granted, it would be a significant financial and brand blow to both companies.ABC

Reactions from the Parties: Three Different "Victory Declarations"

Epic naturally emphasized it as a **"victory for consumers and developers." Meanwhile, Apple and Google expressed agreement with the dismissal of some of Epic's claims but disagreed with the findings of illegality concerning payments and operations. In other words, all three parties are highlighting their "winning points," and the legal battle, including appeals, is set to continue.Reuters

The Frontline of Rule-Making: Courts vs. Regulation

While this judgment is a result of court battles, the role of regulatory authorities cannot be ignored. Around the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC), there is a view that litigation alone has limits in terms of speed and cost, and there is growing debate that platform regulation rules need to be urgently established.Lexology

Appeals Possible Within 28 Days: The Battle Moves to the "Second Leg"

Apple and Google have a 28-day deadline to appeal from the judgment. Whether the design of remedies and changes to iOS/Android implementations will remain "Australia-only" or spread to other regions—the next move will influence the market.gtlaw.com.au

Reactions on Social Media: Joy, Caution, and Debate Over "Ecosystem Freedom"

**On X (formerly Twitter), Epic's CEO Tim Sweeney declared "Victory in the Australian antitrust case. Fortnite returns to iOS." The official news account also posted "Australian court recognizes Apple and Google's control over distribution and payments,"** spreading excitement in the community.X (formerly Twitter)Information Age

On Reddit (r/Games), comments like "It's wrong for a 'major computing device' like a smartphone to be locked to a single store" and "The 'rent-seeking' by both companies should be corrected" highlight support for "ecosystem freedom." On the other hand, there are also cautious voices asking "Who will bear the cost of security and quality control?," bringing the trade-off between safety and freedom back into focus.Reddit

In gaming forums like ResetEra, while many welcome the decision as "an effective check on big tech," there are also concerns about "the side effects of court rulings on development speed and UX." Nonetheless, the general consensus is that developers' bargaining power will increase.ResetEra

Global Context: The "App Tax" Debate in the US, Europe, and the UK

Epic's platform battle has seen Epic largely lose against Apple in the US, although there was some progress such as "allowing external links," and Epic won against Google in a 2023 jury verdict, showing a mixed outcome. The recent Australian ruling seems to be a step in connecting these international **"dots."**The Verge

Points of Interest Moving Forward (Practical Matters)

1. Remedies Design: To what extent and with what UX will alternative stores/alternative payments be allowed? How will child payment and fraud prevention be designed? (Depends on future hearings and rules)The Guardian

2. Price Pass-Through: If commission rates effectively drop, will app prices and subscription fees actually decrease? The damage assessment in class actions is also a focal point.ABC

3. Geographical Impact: Will the operational changes be limited to Australia, or will they align with global standards? The complexity of the supply chain and the engineering burden cannot be ignored.Reuters

4. Appeal Strategy: Which points will Apple/Google bring back for a rematch within the deadline? The safety of sideloading will be one of the major points of contention.gtlaw.com.au
   
   

Summary: The Greater Cause is Not "Freedom or Safety" but "Designing Coexistence"

The so-called "app tax" of 30% commission and the integrated enclosure of distribution and payment have been pillars supporting the ecosystem's safety, quality, and revenue model. However, if they unfairly diminish competition, a redesign is inevitable. The recent Australian ruling challenges the global mobile market with the practical question of how to balance safety and freedom.The Guardian