Home/Federal/Cases/Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Back to Cases

Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.

559 F. Supp. 3d 898 (N.D. Cal. 2021)

Opinion Summary

Found Apple violated California's Unfair Competition Law by prohibiting developers from directing users to alternative payment methods, but ruled Apple is not a monopolist under federal antitrust law. Judge Gonzalez Rogers issued an injunction requiring Apple to allow links to external payment systems in the App Store.

Related Cases

McCulloch v. Maryland

17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316 (1819)

Upheld the constitutionality of the Second Bank of the United States under the Necessary and Proper Clause and held that states cannot tax federal institutions. Chief Justice Marshall established a broad interpretation of congressional power, declaring that the federal government possesses implied powers beyond those enumerated in the Constitution.

Gibbons v. Ogden

22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1 (1824)

Held that the Commerce Clause grants Congress broad power to regulate interstate commerce, including navigation. States cannot grant monopolies that interfere with congressionally authorized interstate trade. Established the foundation for federal regulatory power over economic activity crossing state lines.

Lochner v. New York

198 U.S. 45 (1905)

Struck down a New York law limiting bakery workers to a 60-hour work week, holding it violated the Fourteenth Amendment's protection of liberty of contract. Inaugurated the 'Lochner era' of aggressive judicial review of economic regulations, which lasted until the late 1930s. Now widely criticized as judicial overreach.

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States

379 U.S. 241 (1964)

Upheld Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibited racial discrimination in places of public accommodation. The Court ruled that Congress had authority under the Commerce Clause to prohibit racial discrimination in hotels and motels serving interstate travelers.

National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius

567 U.S. 519 (2012)

Upheld the Affordable Care Act's individual mandate as a valid exercise of Congress's taxing power, while holding it exceeded Commerce Clause authority. Also held that the ACA's Medicaid expansion was impermissibly coercive to the states. Chief Justice Roberts joined the liberal justices to save the law's central provision.

Case Information

Court
United States District Court for the Northern District of California
Court Level
U.S. District Court
Date Decided
Friday, September 10, 2021
Citation
559 F. Supp. 3d 898 (N.D. Cal. 2021)
Jurisdiction
United States Federal

Legal Topics

business