„Epic Games cannot simply proclaim a „monopoly“ to rewrite agreements that have unilateral advantages,“ Gonzalez Rogers wrote in a 39-page judgment in which he partially rejected epic Games` injunction application. „Apple`s separate agreements with separate units appear to be retaliation, especially where those agreements have not been violated elsewhere,“ Rogers wrote. Apple had said it would allow Fortnite to return to the store if Epic removed the direct payment function to comply with its development agreement. However, the judge found that there was „an important public interest in the parties being required to comply with their contractual agreements or to settle business disputes as normal.“ She denied that her 30% commission was anti-competitive and said the fight was „a fundamental disagreement over money.“ „The prosecution of Epic is nothing more than a fundamental disagreement over money,“ Apple said in its complaint. „While Epic presents itself as a modern Robin Hood company, it`s actually a multi-billion dollar company that doesn`t want to pay for the huge value it receives from the App Store. Epic`s calls for special treatment and calls for „retaliation“ cannot be reconciled with its flagrant breach of contract and its own business practices, as it earns billions by taking commissions on the sale of game developers and charging consumers up to $99.99 for „V-Bucks“ packages. Apple has blocked Unreal Engine, a game engine that is used by third parties to create games. The game engine is distributed by a subsidiary of Epic Games and operates under a separate licensing agreement with Apple. An Apple spokesman said the company was grateful that the court „recognized that Epic`s actions were not in the best interests of its own customers and that any problems they may have encountered were caused by themselves when they violated their agreement.“ The spokesperson added that Apple`s App Store was „an economic miracle“ that had created „transformative business opportunities“ for developers.