A recent Law 360 story by Bryan Koenig, “Epic Calls Apple’s $73M Fee Bid An Overreach”, reports that Epic Games blasted Apple for seeking $73.4 million in legal fees following the pair's California federal court antitrust battle over App Store payment fees, arguing that antitrust claims like Epic's are immune from legal fees and that Apple cannot wrap its demands in successful contract breach counterclaims.

Apple's fee bid, according to Epic, "overreaches at every turn" after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to consider a Ninth Circuit decision upholding a district court ruling largely siding with the iPhone maker, except on Epic's California state law claims targeting Apple rules barring app developers from steering users to alternative payment options.

"Apple seeks recovery of unrecoverable fees and costs incurred in defending against Epic's antitrust claims; it seeks recovery of fees and costs it incurred in defending against other plaintiffs' antitrust claims; and it seeks recovery of categories of expenditures that go beyond what the Ninth Circuit's ruling in this case permitted," Epic said in its opposition brief. "Apple even seeks its fees and costs incurred in seeking its fees and costs, even though the vast majority of those fees and costs it seeks are not recoverable and Apple made no effort to meet and confer with Epic to determine the scope of any dispute before filing the motion."

According to Epic, Apple's mid-January bid for legal costs is grounded in the latter's win on claims that Epic breached its developer program licensing agreement when offering users an in-app workaround for the up to 30% commission that Apple charges on in-app purchases, such as through Epic's Fortnite game juggernaut. Epic is only the most prominent of multiple plaintiffs to target those commissions.

The problem with a fees bid based on the contract breach claims, Epic said, is that a California state appeals court held in Carver v. Chevron USA Inc. that defendants, even ones who successfully defeat antitrust claims, cannot claim any fees incurred in that defense.  According to the brief, it doesn't matter that the developer program licensing agreement otherwise calls for plaintiffs to reimburse Apple.

"Moreover, any fees and costs that are 'inextricably intertwined' with those incurred in defending against antitrust claims also cannot be recovered, even if they were incurred also in connection with a breach of contract claim," Epic said.  "Apple may thus recover only those fees and costs it incurred specifically to litigate separable, non-antitrust claims — i.e., fees and costs attributable to work performed for Apple's contract claims that did not overlap with its defense against Epic's (or other plaintiffs') antitrust claims."

But Apple hasn't tried to separate or identify those costs, according to the brief. "To the contrary, Apple completely ignores this binding precedent and seeks primarily and specifically the unrecoverable fees and costs it incurred in defending against Epic's antitrust claims," it said.

Epic also assailed Apple for seeking to recover costs incurred in defending against other plaintiffs who'd also targeted the Apple rules leaving the App Store as the only way to get apps on iPhones.  It attacked Apple for going beyond the Ninth Circuit mandate to pursue only attorney fees; according to Epic, around 40% of the fees Apple has claimed cover costs for things like expert witness and consulting fees, travel and logistical support.  And it assailed Apple for seeking costs incurred from putting together the motion for costs.

"Moreover, Apple did not meet and confer with Epic prior to filing its motion as required by Civil Local Rule 54-5, and, as a result, incurred attorneys' fees and costs that it could well have avoided," Epic said.  "Specifically, Apple unilaterally engaged two experts and a team of nine analysts from an expert consulting shop to review its invoices, without so much as checking whether Epic intended to dispute any of its calculations or the reasonableness of the fees and costs it incurred."

Epic said it hasn't tried to assess the accuracy of Apple's fees bid, preferring to leave that issue until after the court determines the appropriate scope of any fees bid.  It further called a detailed review "wasteful when Apple has sought to sweep in much to which it is not legally entitled" and it assailed Apple for providing "only an incomplete set of materials just days before this opposition was due."