Epic Games’ Antitrust Lawsuit Advances: Judge Clears Path for Trial Against Apple and Google

Health against Epic systems, but key allegations regarding monopolistic practices will proceed.">

September 9, 2025

New York, NY – A Federal Judge has issued a ruling in the ongoing antitrust case between healthcare technology startup Particle Health and electronic Health Record (EHR) giant Epic Systems. While several claims were dismissed on Friday, critical allegations concerning Epic’s market dominance and anti-competitive behavior will continue to be litigated. This development marks a significant moment in the escalating debate over data access and competition within the healthcare industry.

Judge’s Ruling: A Mixed Outcome

The lawsuit, initially filed in September 2024, centers on Particle Health’s accusation that Epic leveraged its substantial market share to stifle competition in the payer platform sector. Epic, in december, filed a motion to dismiss the case entirely. Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald agreed with Epic on five of the nine claims, rejecting assertions of a conspiracy to maintain market control, as well as allegations of defamation and trade libel. However, three federal antitrust claims and Particle’s allegation of interference with a business contract were allowed to move forward.

The Court found that Particle had sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a distinct market for payer-specific data tools and that option software options for insurers are limited.Judge Buchwald noted,”It remains to be seen whether Particle will be able to establish willful acquisition of market power in discovery. However, at this stage of the litigation, Particle has identified conduct sufficient to raise a non-speculative inference that Epic’s actions were uneconomic and inconsistent with the rational behavior of a legitimate competitor.”

The Core of the Dispute

Particle Health, founded in 2018, aims to facilitate seamless data sharing and analysis for healthcare organizations. The company alleges that Epic intentionally expanded its reach into the payer platform market, attempting to control access to crucial medical records and associated analytics. Particle claims Epic implemented policies that considerably hampered its operations.

According to the lawsuit,Epic lodged a complaint with the Carequality interoperability framework,alleging improper data request labeling by Particle. Subsequently, Epic halted responses to Electronic Health Record (EHR) requests from 34 Particle customers and introduced new, stringent onboarding requirements for Particle users. The startup asserts that this resulted in onboarding times increasing from under two days to over a month, effectively deterring potential clients.

Epic’s Response & Future Outlook

Epic expressed confidence in its position, stating through a spokesperson that the company anticipates presenting evidence to secure a favorable outcome on the remaining claims. Particle Health, tho, celebrated the judge’s decision, with CEO Jason Prestinario emphasizing that the core monopolization claims remain active. “This is the first time in Epic’s history that an antitrust case against them has gotten to this point,” Prestinario stated.

Claim Type	Ruling
Conspiracy to Uphold Market Dominance	dismissed
Defamation	Dismissed
Trade Libel	Dismissed
Federal Antitrust Claims	allowed to Proceed
Interference with Business Contract	Allowed to Proceed

Did You Know? The healthcare interoperability landscape is increasingly scrutinized by regulators, with the Biden management issuing an executive order in 2021 aimed at promoting competition and lowering healthcare costs through improved data sharing. Learn more about the executive order here.

Pro Tip: Understanding the complexities of healthcare antitrust law requires a deep dive into concepts like market definition, market power, and anticompetitive conduct. Resources from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) can provide further insight.

antitrust and Healthcare: A Growing Trend

The case between Particle Health and Epic Systems exemplifies a broader trend of increasing antitrust scrutiny within the healthcare sector. historically, healthcare has been characterized by complex regulations and limited competition, leading to high costs and fragmented care. However, recent years have witnessed a surge in regulatory action and private lawsuits challenging dominant players and advocating for greater openness and interoperability. The ongoing debate centers on whether increased competition will ultimately benefit patients by driving down costs and improving access to care. According to a report by the American Hospital Association, hospital mergers have increased significantly in the last decade, raising concerns about market consolidation. Read the full report here.

Frequently Asked Questions about the Epic Antitrust Case

• What is Epic Systems accused of? Epic Systems is accused of using its market dominance in the Electronic Health Record (EHR) space to unfairly compete in the payer platform market, hindering access to data for other companies.
• What is Particle Health’s role in this lawsuit? Particle Health is the plaintiff, arguing that Epic’s actions harmed its business and stifled competition in the healthcare data sharing industry.
• What does the judge’s ruling mean for the future of the case? While some claims were dismissed, the key antitrust allegations will proceed, meaning the legal battle between Epic and Particle Health is far from over.
• Why is healthcare antitrust litigation crucial? Antitrust litigation in healthcare aims to promote competition, potentially lowering costs, increasing innovation, and improving patient care.
• What is an EHR and why are they important? An Electronic Health Record (EHR) is a digital version of a patient’s chart.They are crucial for coordinating care and improving patient outcomes, but also represent a significant point of control in the healthcare data ecosystem.

What are your thoughts on the role of competition in healthcare innovation? Share your comments below, and let’s continue the conversation.

What specific monopolistic practices is Epic Games alleging apple and Google have engaged in?

The Core of the Dispute: App Store Fees and Anti-Competitive Practices

the legal battle between Epic Games and tech giants Apple and Google is escalating, with a recent ruling allowing the antitrust lawsuit to proceed to trial. This lawsuit, stemming from the 2020 removal of Fortnite from both the App Store and Google Play Store, centers around accusations of monopolistic practices and unfair app store fees. Epic Games argues that Apple and Google exert undue control over the digital marketplace, stifling competition and harming both developers and consumers. Key to the argument is the 30% commission charged on in-app purchases, a fee Epic deems excessively high and anti-competitive. This commission impacts game developers significantly, reducing their revenue and limiting their ability to innovate.

Timeline of Events: From Fortnite Ban to Legal Action

Here’s a breakdown of the key events leading to the current state of the lawsuit:

1. August 2020: Epic Games intentionally violated Apple and Google’s app store policies by offering a direct payment option within Fortnite, bypassing the standard 30% commission.
2. September 2020: Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, and Google followed suit, removing it from the Google Play Store.
3. September 2020: epic Games filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple, alleging monopolistic behavior. A similar suit was later filed against Google.
4. Early 2021: A preliminary injunction battle ensued, with the court largely siding with Apple, preventing Fortnite from returning to the App Store while the lawsuit progressed.
5. september 2025: A judge ruled that epic Games presented sufficient evidence to proceed to trial, clearing a significant hurdle in the case.

Apple’s Defense and Google’s Position

Apple maintains that its App Store policies are designed to ensure security and a positive user experience. They argue the 30% commission is standard across the industry and covers the costs of maintaining the App Store infrastructure and providing developer tools. Apple also emphasizes its investment in app review processes to protect users from malicious software.

Google, while facing a similar lawsuit, has adopted a slightly different approach. They’ve recently allowed some app developers to use option payment systems, potentially mitigating some of Epic’s claims. Though, Epic argues these changes are insufficient and don’t address the basic issue of Google’s market dominance. The core argument against Google revolves around its control over the Android operating system and its pre-installation of the Google Play store on moast android devices.

Potential Outcomes and Implications for the Tech Industry

The outcome of this trial could have far-reaching consequences for the entire tech industry. Here are some potential scenarios:

Ruling in Favor of Epic Games: This could force Apple and Google to significantly alter their app store policies, potentially lowering commission fees, allowing alternative payment systems, and opening up their platforms to greater competition.

Compromise and Settlement: A settlement could involve a combination of policy changes and financial compensation for Epic Games.

* Ruling in Favor of Apple and Google: This would likely reinforce the current app store model and limit Epic’s ability to challenge their practices.

Regardless of the outcome, the lawsuit has already sparked a broader conversation about the power of tech giants and the need for greater regulation of digital marketplaces. The case is being closely watched by developers, consumers, and regulators worldwide.

The Role of Antitrust Law in the Digital Age

This case highlights the challenges of applying traditional antitrust laws to the rapidly evolving digital landscape. The concept of “monopoly” is being redefined in the context of platform economies, where network effects and data control play a crucial role. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) are also actively investigating other tech companies, signaling a growing scrutiny of Big Tech’s market power. Terms like “digital gatekeepers” and “platform dominance” are becoming increasingly common in