Apple Wins Appeal Against UK’s Decision to Investigate Its Mobile Browser
Reuters:
Apple Inc won its appeal against the decision by Britain’s
antitrust regulator to launch an investigation into its mobile
browser and cloud gaming services, the Competition Appeal Tribunal
(CAT) ruled on Friday.
Regulator the Competition and Market Authority (CMA) opened a full
investigation in November into the dominance of Apple and Alphabet
Inc’s Google in mobile browsers, and the possibility of the iPhone
maker restricting the cloud gaming market through its app store.
Apple argued that the CMA had “no power” to launch such a probe
because it did so too late. Its lawyer Timothy Otty earlier this
month said that the market investigation should have been opened
last June at the same time the CMA published a report on mobile
ecosystems, which found the two tech giants had an “effective
duopoly.”
The CAT endorsed Apple’s argument, saying that in declining to
take action at that time only in the expectation of receiving
further powers it might well be said that the CMA “erred in law”.
Seems like a technicality, but still, in my opinion, the correct result.
★
Reuters:
Apple Inc won its appeal against the decision by Britain’s
antitrust regulator to launch an investigation into its mobile
browser and cloud gaming services, the Competition Appeal Tribunal
(CAT) ruled on Friday.
Regulator the Competition and Market Authority (CMA) opened a full
investigation in November into the dominance of Apple and Alphabet
Inc’s Google in mobile browsers, and the possibility of the iPhone
maker restricting the cloud gaming market through its app store.
Apple argued that the CMA had “no power” to launch such a probe
because it did so too late. Its lawyer Timothy Otty earlier this
month said that the market investigation should have been opened
last June at the same time the CMA published a report on mobile
ecosystems, which found the two tech giants had an “effective
duopoly.”
The CAT endorsed Apple’s argument, saying that in declining to
take action at that time only in the expectation of receiving
further powers it might well be said that the CMA “erred in law”.
Seems like a technicality, but still, in my opinion, the correct result.