“But it said those errors were ultimately “harmless” and that Epic, regardless, had “failed to establish, as a factual matter, its proposed market definition and the existence of any substantially less restrictive alternative means for Apple to accomplish the procompetitive justifications supporting iOS’s walled- garden ecosystem.””
The Ninth Circuit found the district court got the market definition wrong and wrongly put Apple’s developer agreement outside the Sherman Act. Then it called both errors harmless and ruled for Apple anyway. The court also agreed Apple’s rules have “a substantial anticompetitive effect that harms consumers.” Harming consumers is fine, as long as the plaintiff draws the market wrong.