That’s not what the document actually says though. It says Epic games has filed a case with 10 claims, some of which are categorised as antitrust but none of which actually state the term “monopoly” (remember antitrust rules doesn’t just apply to monopolies). And again, it’s worth remembering that document demonstrates that even those antitrust claims weren’t well received by the judge.
Unless you can find another court document that does specifically mention the individual claims and states the word “monopoly”? The only references I can find is tabloid-level journalism covering the story (ie using vague summaries with common language rather than legal jargon accurately). If you can I’ll happily accept that the “monopoly” point is at least currently under legal dispute. But I can’t find any evidence to support that claim.
You can find this in Epic's filing. As you point out, Epic's federal antitrust claims were not as well received as their claims based on California law at the temporary restraining order stage, but they have not been finally resolved. https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/epic-v-apple-8-17-20-768927327...
> Apple conditions app developers’ access to app distribution through the App Store on their agreement to use Apple’s IAP to process all their customers’ in-app purchases of in-app content ... Epic is likely to prove that this conduct is: (a) tying per se; (b) an unreasonable restraint of trade under Section 1 of the Sherman Act under the rule of reason; (c) unlawful maintenance of a monopoly under Section 2; and (d) a denial of access to an essential facility under Section 2.
Unless you can find another court document that does specifically mention the individual claims and states the word “monopoly”? The only references I can find is tabloid-level journalism covering the story (ie using vague summaries with common language rather than legal jargon accurately). If you can I’ll happily accept that the “monopoly” point is at least currently under legal dispute. But I can’t find any evidence to support that claim.