Apple and Epic Games stated in a court filing on Tuesday that their coming court battle should be decided in a bench trial by a judge, not a jury
AppleInsiderMikey Campbell
Context & Ripple Effects
A day after the judge floated a jury trial likely to start in July 2021 — while sounding skeptical of several of Epic's core arguments — both combatants filed a joint request to take juries out of the equation entirely. Rare agreement between Apple and Epic signals each side thinks a judge versed in antitrust technicalities serves it better than lay jurors.
The request sits early in an arc the related coverage traces forward: analysts later judged Apple the probable winner even before the verdict, and after the trial Apple argued Epic lost on its own failure to prove wrongdoing, not judicial error. The bench-trial filing is the moment both sides chose their preferred referee.
First-order effects
Apple and Epic swap the judge's proposed jury format for a bench trial, putting the App Store dispute entirely in one judge's hands on questions like market definition that jurors rarely grapple with.
Second-order effects
Other developers and rival storefronts reading the judge's earlier pushback on Epic's positions get a cleaner signal: the case will turn on legal-technical merits rather than jury sympathy for either side.
Third-order effects
If this template holds, platform-commission fights resolve through judge-decided rulings that pressure gatekeepers into developer-facing concessions — the appeasement dynamic Bloomberg flagged around the trial — rather than public jury verdicts.
The trend: App Store fee disputes are becoming judge-led antitrust proceedings where technical market definitions, not jury sentiment, decide how much power gatekeepers keep over developers.
@reneritchie Customers were never buying Epic's narrative to begin with. Instead, the press needs to call Epic out (and they haven't been doing that). The multi-nationals that are losing to Apple in various ways love what Epic is doing and are full in support of them regardless o…
@hoeglaw
Richard Hoeg on x
@theonetruemango You'd have to ask them. Generally you ask for a jury if you think some aspect of your emotional appeal/popularity will win you the day. Maybe a lot of Apple fans in the jurisdiction?
@timsweeneyepic
Tim Sweeney on x
@AppleTerminal @EpicGames @Apple Apple did make a public statement saying it was not doing anything to stop SIWA from working for Epic - that was misleading. Check the date. It came after their private communications to Epic clearly intending an intent to terminate it. It's all i…
@stroughtonsmith
Steve Troughton-Smith on x
@migueldeicaza @StephenWarwick9 it's fascinating that Epic backed away from jury trial, because I think a jury would have been way more lenient with their bullshit than the legal system will be. I don't think there's any way they win their legal arguments without antitrust regula…
@stroughtonsmith
Steve Troughton-Smith on x
@reneritchie No, it's not ‘just as important’ — Apple lied to Congress. Epic maybe lied about or maybe misunderstood an aspect of losing their developer account, and communicated it to users. Painting these things as equal in nature is BS, just like the console argument
@reneritchie
Rene Ritchie on x
(I'm still 100% on Xbox Gamepass and Stadia's side — they should be on the App Store exactly like Netflix and Disney+ are. Apple is not just wrong but short-sighted there. But what little sympathy I had for Epic's position is gone. Like the judge's patience with them, it seems.)