I'd like to highlight a phrase in the summary here that really stuck out to me. As with some other commenters, it does seem that the judge is not particularly inclined in this argument to side with Epic because it is in the mobile gaming arena, but...
> Fortnite aside, though, Judge Rogers also said she was inclined to agree with Epic's assertion that "there is an uproar in the marketplace about the lack of competition for [distribution of] iPhone apps. You read the papers, I read the papers, it's there." That said, Judge Rogers also suggested this specific case might not be the right one to make that argument, "given the amount of competition for mobile games."
While it looks like this is going to a jury trial, it does leave open a hole for a different kind of app (lets say spotify or tinder (match group)) to try and take a similar argument to court within a different market sector.
> Fortnite aside, though, Judge Rogers also said she was inclined to agree with Epic's assertion that "there is an uproar in the marketplace about the lack of competition for [distribution of] iPhone apps. You read the papers, I read the papers, it's there." That said, Judge Rogers also suggested this specific case might not be the right one to make that argument, "given the amount of competition for mobile games."
While it looks like this is going to a jury trial, it does leave open a hole for a different kind of app (lets say spotify or tinder (match group)) to try and take a similar argument to court within a different market sector.