" They could charge anything they like -- 100%. It's a voluntary contract, and Epic doesn't have to engage in it. We don't have to engage in it. There's no fund

" They could charge anything they like -- 100%. It's a voluntary contract, and Epic doesn't have to engage in it. We don't have to engage in it. There's no fundamental right to offer an app on an app store, and if the scope of the market is defined as the market for video games/content, then none of these places are monopolies and companies/people are free to set their desired prices." They are monopolies, or more precisely, an oligarchy. Mobile devices have become 'essential utility' not quite but almost like roads, internet access etc. and Google/Apple have absolute control. Imagine if Verizon and AT&T said: "We're going to charge 30% of all revenue derived form Internet Usage". What would be the difference? Could we just 'refuse to engage' and 'not use the internet'? We scream 'net neutrality' when it comes to network access, we need to recognize some of the same logic applies here as well. Sometimes it's hard to demonstrate 'consumer harm' when we don't know what the market would look like otherwise: in Canada, literally up until the 1980's, the telephone system was a de-facto government monopoly called 'Bell Telephone'. You had to buy everything from them, they set prices etc. etc.. Imagine what would happen if iOS and Android 'banned' anything other than Safari and Chrome. Imagine if theY forced Bing and Google only respectively as search engines and banned all others? How would we react? In much the same way Europe has required users have the ability to have the choice of Search, even default search, I think the minimum requirement would be to allow 3rd party apps and 3rd party app stores.