Apple's 'Fortnite' trial ends with pointed questions and a toast to Popeyes

While Gonzalez Rogers signaled openness to Epic’s arguments during the trial, a ruling in favor of the video game maker might not lead to momentous changes in the market for mobile apps. Any verdict is also likely to be tied up in appeals for years, at which point rapid change in the technology industry could leave its effects obsolete.

“To mount a credible antitrust campaign, you need to have a significant war chest,” said David Kesselman, an antitrust lawyer in Los Angeles who has followed the case. “And the problem for many smaller companies and smaller businesses is that they don’t have the wherewithal to mount that type of a fight.”

The case focused on how Apple wields control over the iPhone App Store to charge its commission on app sales. Companies big and small have argued that the fee shows Apple is abusing its dominance, while Apple has responded that its cut of sales helps fund efforts to keep iPhones safe. Regulators and lawmakers have homed in on the issue, making it the center of antitrust complaints against the company.

Epic’s lawsuit was the biggest test yet of those claims — and the best shot for app developers who want to weaken Apple’s grip on the iPhone app market. Tim Sweeney, Epic’s CEO and a longtime antagonist to Big Tech companies, has said he is “fighting for open platforms and policy changes equally benefiting all developers.”

Throughout the trial, lawyers, investors and journalists parsed Gonzalez Rogers’ comments and questions for hints of her thinking. When Epic brought its witnesses to the stand, she appeared at points to be sympathetic to Apple’s arguments. But the angle of her questions shifted when Apple presented its witnesses, including Cook, last week.

In a sharp back-and-forth with the Apple CEO on Friday, Gonzalez Rogers told Cook that it was clear his company had made changes to its app store fees in response to public pressure. She then interrogated him on why Apple was unwilling to give iPhone users more choice on where they could buy apps. In response, Cook effectively admitted that Apple wanted to maximize its profits.

On Monday, Gonzalez Rogers’ comments suggested that she believed Apple deserved to profit from its innovations. But she also questioned some of the ways it sought to do so.

“The 30% number has been there since the inception. And if there was real competition, that number would move. And it hasn’t,” she said of Apple’s commission on app sales. She also said that it was anticompetitive for Apple to ban companies from telling customers that they could buy items outside of iPhone apps.

At other times Monday, she appeared reluctant to force Apple to change its business. “Courts do not run businesses,” she said.

Gonzalez Rogers also suggested that Epic’s requested outcome in the case would require a significant change in Apple’s business and questioned whether there was legal precedent for that. “Give me some example that survived appellate review where the court has engaged in such a way to limit or fundamentally change the economic model of a monopolistic company?” she asked Epic’s lawyers.

The judge has said she expects her ruling to be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. If appealed, a three-judge panel in that court could review her decision. Apple or Epic could then try to appeal that ruling to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Gonzalez Rogers may also deliver a ruling that makes neither company happy. While Epic wants to be able to host its own app store on iPhones, and Apple wants to continue to operate as it has for years, she might order smaller changes.