Apple violated federal or state antitrust laws, but ruled that Apple did violate the California Unfair Competition Law through the anti-competitive behavior of disallowing any mention of other payment systems within apps. In line with Epic's arguments, Rogers identified that some of Apple's practices may be of concern due to the lack of competition in the digital game purchases market, but as having determined that Apple was not a monopoly, could not take immediate action to remedy. Rogers stated that the lack of competition in this area was of concern and that Apple only seemed to be motivated to innovate or change its App Store policies when subject to litigation. Rogers believed that the 30% revenue cut that Apple charges may be "unjustified" relative to the value they offer, but without significant competition to compare alternate schemes, she could not make any direct order on this. Rogers did write that "The point is that a third-party app store could put pressure on Apple to innovate by providing features that Apple has neglected." However, she disagreed with Epic's stance that Apple should not require apps to include the IAP feature for payment features, stating that Apple has a right to take some fee for licensing its intellectual property to developers. Rogers agreed with Apple that there was a valid interest in their policies to require oversight on app approval for the App Store for security purposes, which Epic had argued was used to shut down app approvals. However, Rogers did not fully accept Apple's argument that app review had to be tied directly to app distribution as the only means to prevent malware and other security issues, believing that more app reviewers would help separate these functions within the App Store. Judge Rogers also ruled against Epic, requiring them to pay Apple , 30% of the revenue that was withheld to Apple related to their attempts to bypass the App Store, and further stated that Epic did violate its contractual terms as a developer with Apple in how they deployed the update to Fortnite in August 2020 that instigated events, such that Apple may block Epic in the future from providing apps to the App Store. Rogers stated that Apple's single offense against California's law was not sufficiently severe to justify Epic's rulebreaking. Appeals On the day of Rogers' decision, a representative for Apple stated that "Today the Court has affirmed