USA Trends and Developments Contributed by: Peter Mucchetti, Sharis Pozen, Brian Concklin and Michael Van Arsdall, Clifford Chance US
The remedies hearing will commence in September 2025. Epic v Apple (contempt order) Epic Games filed a complaint against Apple in August 2020, alleging that Apple engaged in anti-competitive practices by monopolising “the iOS app distribution market and the in-app payment processing market”, by restricting off-platform links for applications using the Apple App Store. In September 2021, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled in favour of Epic Games on its state law antitrust claim and issued a permanent injunction, restraining Apple from prohibit - ing developers from directing customers to other pur - chasing mechanisms outside the Apple App Store. In April 2025, the court reviewed Apple’s post-injunc - tion practices and granted Epic Games’ motion that Apple wilfully violated the 2021 injunction. The court found that Apple created new anti-competitive barri - ers to maintain a valued revenue stream. Apple had changed its App Store policies to allow developers to point consumers to out-of-app payment options but charged a 27% commission on out-of-app purchases. In doing so, the court held that Apple implemented new barriers and new requirements that maintained high costs for developers and dissuaded use of alter - native purchase methods. Judge Gonzalez Rogers held Apple in civil contempt and referred Apple’s post- injunction conduct to the US Attorney for the North - ern District of California to investigate and consider whether criminal contempt sanctions are warranted. Live Entertainment and Ticket Industry Updates United States v Live Nation Entertainment In May 2024, the DOJ filed a complaint against Live Nation Entertainment, Inc (Live Nation) and its sub - sidiary, Ticketmaster LLC. The DOJ alleged that Live Nation carried out monopolistic and anti-competitive conduct in the live concert industry. The DOJ’s lawsuit could have far-reaching implications, such as revamp - ing the current structure and operations of the live entertainment sector. For example, smaller promot - ers and artists may gain more bargaining power over terms and conditions when booking live entertainment venues. The DOJ’s complaint centres around a series of strategies that Live Nation allegedly employed to stifle competition and maintain a dominant market
position. One of the key accusations against Live Nation is that it issued retaliatory threats against con - cert venues that considered using competing ticket providers to coerce venues into exclusionary contrac - tual agreements. By limiting the ticket provider options available to both venues and consumers, Ticketmas - ter allegedly preserves its control over the ticketing service industry. Another significant aspect of the DOJ’s case is the allegation that Live Nation strategically acquired regional concert promoters to eliminate competi - tion. According to the complaint, these acquisitions reduce opportunities for new and existing competitors to challenge Live Nation’s position. In March 2025, US District Judge Arun Subramanian for the South - ern District of New York denied Live Nation’s motion to dismiss, holding that the government “plausibly alleged a tying claim” against Live Nation. The case is now proceeding to discovery. The complaint does not identify specific behavioural remedies, but in similar cases remedies have included prohibiting exclusion - ary contracts and retaliation tactics. The Latest in Sports Litigation In re College Athlete NIL Litigation In June 2025, US District Judge Claudia Wilken approved a USD2.8 billion settlement resolving anti - trust claims brought by nearly 400,000 current and former National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) Division I athletes. Plaintiffs alleged that NCAA rules unlawfully restricted athletes from profiting from their name, image and likeness (NIL), violating antitrust laws. Under the settlement, the NCAA and the Power 5 Conferences – the most prominent and financial - ly powerful athletic conferences in NCAA Division I sports – must pay over USD2.5 billion in back dam - ages for NIL uses from 2016 to 2024. Also, begin - ning in the 2025–2026 academic year, each member school may share up to USD20.5 million in revenue with athletes. However, whether the revenue-sharing model complies with Title IX of the Education Amend - ments Act of 1972 – which mandates gender equality in federally funded educational programmes – remains uncertain. While that issue is pending before the Ninth Circuit, the settlement payouts have been paused (see House v
286 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook