A US choose stopped in need of labeling Apple an “illegal monopolist” on Friday, however the closely-watched ruling gives a roadmap for related claims towards the iPhone maker sooner or later, authorized consultants mentioned.

Ruling on an antitrust case introduced by Epic Games, creator of the web recreation “Fortnite,” US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers mentioned Epic didn’t current adequate proof of Apple having illegal monopoly energy within the related market, which she outlined as “digital mobile gaming transactions.”

But the California choose made clear that the choice was restricted to the details earlier than her.

“While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55 percent and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct,” Gonzalez Rogers mentioned. “The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist.”

The choose did discover that Apple’s guidelines on its profitable App Store enterprise violated California state competitors legal guidelines.

The query of whether or not Apple abused monopoly energy “remains very much unsettled,” mentioned Joshua Paul Davis, a professor of antitrust regulation on the University of San Francisco School of Law.

“Given how controversial these issues are right now, I would expect this not to be the final say,” he mentioned.

In her ruling, Gonzalez Rogers famous that Epic Games had “overreached” in a trial earlier this 12 months by attempting to outline the related market as all app distribution and in-app funds on iPhones.

“As a consequence, the trial record was not as fulsome with respect to antitrust conduct in the relevant market as it could have been,” Gonzalez Rogers mentioned.

Apple’s authorized workforce mentioned it was nonetheless reviewing whether or not to attraction the choice.

“We’re extremely pleased with this decision,” Apple’s General Counsel Katherine L. Adams advised reporters. “It underscores the merit of our business, both as an economic and competitive engine.”

Valarie Williams, a accomplice at regulation agency Alston & Bird, referred to as Gonzalez Rogers’ choice a “road map” to future plaintiffs pursuing monopoly claims towards Apple.

Future plaintiffs may deliver a case that adopts Gonzalez Rogers’s market definition and introduces extra proof, Williams mentioned.

Sam Weinstein, a professor of antitrust regulation at Cardozo School of Law, agreed the choose’s ruling may encourage different market individuals to study from Epic’s case and attempt to launch a stronger blow towards Apple.

Language within the ruling may even sign that the choose thinks “it’s only a matter of time” earlier than Apple turns into a monopoly, Weinstein mentioned.

“This is only one particular piece of litigation framed in one particular way,” mentioned Davis. “The court was pretty explicit that different litigants could come forward with different evidence…and that could potentially change the result.”