In the wake of the recent Apple/Epic Games lawsuit, there may be one unexpected victor: Fortnite's own banana man Peely. Despite the fact that the lawsuit was focused on a dispute of whether apps could insist that users make purchases through their own store, rather than the Apple Store, part of the decision involved a dispute over Peely's dress.
Apple and Epic Games have been locked in a legal battle since 2020, with Epic suing after tech giant Apple removed Fortnite from the Apple Store. This came after Epic attempted to circumvent the Apple Store with regards to in-game purchases within Fortnite. By encouraging players to use the Epic Store for purchases, rather than the Apple Store, Epic was able to avoid paying Apple its share of the transaction fees for these purchases. Apple was therefore cut out of the majority of Fortnite purchases, given that it was free to play in the Apple Store. After Apple removed the app, however, Epic sued, claiming that Apple had an illegal monopoly, preventing Epic from distributing the game to mobile users. The judge in the case ultimately ruled that Apple was not engaged in monopolistic practices and that Epic would have to pay $12 million for breaching the Apple Store contract. However, the judge also ruled that Apple could no longer prevent developers from including external links for in-app purchases. But one small aspect of this case has caught many Fortnite players' attention.
According to The Verge, in her ruling, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that additional attire was not required for "banana man" Peely. This is in response to a cross-examination question of Epic's VP of marketing, Matthew Weissinger, about the Fortnite tutorial. During the exchange, Apple's attorney noted that they had displayed the character Peely in his Agent Peely outfit rather than showing a naked banana in federal court. Judge Gonzalez Rogers, however, did not seem to require such formality from Peely, saying the additional attire was "not necessary but informative."
While this note is not legally binding and is simply a funny line from the judge, it does not undermine the seriousness of the outcome for Epic. Because Judge Gonzalez Rogers did not find Apple to be engaged in anti-competitive monopolistic conduct, Epic is challenging the determination on appeal. This is likely because, although the ruling that Apple must allow for apps to provide links to external stores, Epic is likely worried by the market power Apple still wields.
Apple can still remove games like Fortnite from its store if it feels that companies like Epic are not leaving enough of the profit pie for its liking. Given the fact that Fortnite makes all of its profits from the games off in-app purchases, Apple would likely want a piece of those profits in exchange for hosting the game on its store. The ultimate outcome of this battle is, therefore, still ongoing.
Source: The Verge