The second chapter will explore the relevant legislation and the relevant market related to previously mention proceedings and will explain how the doctrine of the essential facility might affect the case. Chapter one will examine the relevant facts of the Epic and Apple lawsuit and will summarize the key arguments of this case. This article is composed of several chapters. The main aspect of this analysis is whether Apple can legally restrict the developer’s ability to distribute the applications through the App Store and if it does not restrict the competition. This paper will analyze and critically evaluate the recent lawsuit that was brought up against Apple by Epic Games. Apple raises a broader discussion, whether Apple as the “gatekeeper” of Apps can restrict distribution and access to the apps in the iOS operational system, and whether that kind of activity can be deemed as a monopolist and restrictive competition in App distribution market. That places Apple in a unique position.The case Epic Games v. The distribution of the apps is only available through the App Store, where the only available payment processor is controlled by Apple.
In recent years, the number of apps in the App Store is steadily declining, due to Apple’s decision to remove old apps that do not function or the apps that do not follow current app guidelines.
Since then, the number of applications in the App Store skyrocketed and in 2017 reached around 2.2 million. When Apple Store was launched, there were 500 applications available for iPhone users.