The global fight over app stores landed in Australia in late 2020, when Epic Games filed suits against Apple and Google in the Federal Court. Its claim: the tech giants’ iron grip on app distribution and payments breached Aussie competition laws.
What followed was one of the biggest competition law trials the country has seen.
From Fortnite to Federal Court
Back in 2020, Apple and Google removed Epic Games’ Fortnite from their app stores for introducing its own in-app payment systems, bypassing the 30% commission charged by the tech giants. Epic was on the legal offensive, starting actions across multiple jurisdictions.
In the US, Epic sued on the same day of its ban, though its case against Apple largely failed under US antitrust law. It also filed a complaint with EU regulators, bolstering momentum for new rules like the EU Digital Markets Act, forcing both companies to open their platforms to third-party app stores and payments.
Australia became another critical front.
In late 2020, Epic launched Federal Court proceedings against Apple and, in 2021, against Google. It alleged that the tech giants misused market power under s 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act by restricting the use of in-app payment systems and alternate distribution methods. Epic also claimed both companies had engaged in anti-competitive conduct and acted unconscionably.
It was the first major test of Australia’s revamped misuse of market power law, which was amended in 2017 to add an “effects test” — where a company’s conduct has the purpose, effect, or likely effect of substantially lessening competition, regardless of whether it had intent.
The result was a combined mega-trial: Epic’s cases against Apple and Google rolled together with two class actions from app developers and consumers, all overseen by Justice Jonathan Beach.
The Courtroom Cast
The courtroom was stacked with nine of Australia’s most esteemed silks and a team of formidable lawyers when the trial opened.
Epic retained Allens. Leading the charge was Fiona Crosbie, the firm’s former chair and one of the country’s most prominent competition lawyers. On their feet, Epic briefed some of the heaviest hitters at the bar: $25,000-a-day Neil Young KC, a former Federal Court judge; Dr Ruth Higgins SC, widely regarded as one of Australia’s best commercial silks; Garry Rich SC in Melbourne; and junior barrister Kate Lindeman. Their task was to convince the Court that Apple and Google’s “walled gardens” were not just business choices, but breaches of the law.
Apple relied on Clayton Utz, with competition head Adrian Kuti steering strategy. It briefed Matthew Darke SC and Stephen Free SC in court, both senior silks with deep commercial litigation experience. The Apple legal team supported a defence that cast Apple as simply one competitor in a wider smartphone market, and justified its closed system on user security and privacy.
Google turned to Corrs Chambers Westgarth, led by competition partner Mark McCowan. Cameron Moore SC and Robert Yezerski SC were on their feet, both experienced in regulatory and competition disputes. Google’s case leaned on the argument that Android is far more open than iOS, with side-loading and pre-installed rival stores already available.
The two class actions were driven by plaintiff firms Maurice Blackburn and Phi Finney McDonald. They instructed silks Tony Bannon SC and Nicholas De Young KC to argue that inflated commissions caused widespread losses to developers and consumers.
The Decision
On 12 August 2025, Justice Beach handed down a 2,000-page judgment that found both Apple and Google had misused market power under s 46.
Key findings included:
Market control: Justice Beach defined narrow markets on each platform. Apple was held to control markets for iOS app distribution and iOS in-app payments, effectively monopolising both. Though more open, Google was still found to have substantial power in Android app distribution and billing.
Misuse of power: Apple’s ban on side-loading apps and its mandatory use of Apple’s in-app purchase system were found to have the purpose, effect, or likely effect of substantially lessening competition. Google’s billing rules were treated similarly, and its “Project Hug” incentives — a project designed to keep developers loyal to Google Play — were seen as conduct that entrenched its dominance and foreclosed competition.
Claims dismissed: Epic failed on exclusive dealing, anti-competitive contracts and unconscionable conduct claims. Justice Beach stressed that while Apple and Google’s justifications (like security) were genuine, they didn’t erase the anti-competitive effects.
Class actions: Liability was established for both consumer and developer classes — clearing the way for a damages phase that could run into hundreds of millions.
Epic is now seeking injunctions to force Apple to allow side-loading and alternative app stores on iOS, and for both Apple and Google to permit competing in-app payment systems.
For Apple and Google, the stakes are huge.
If upheld on appeal, both may need to re-engineer their business models in Australia. Compensation could be Australia's largest class action payouts for developers and consumers.