Scientific Games’ Sale of a 34.9% Stake to Institutional Investors, including Caledonia

On December 11, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s finding that Apple Inc. (“Apple”) committed civil contempt based on Apple’s willful violations of a permanent injunction that Cravath client Epic Games, Inc. (“Epic”) previously secured against Apple. The Court of Appeals affirmed several contempt sanctions imposed by the District Court against Apple, while modifying or reversing in part certain other sanctions and remanding to the District Court for further proceedings. The Court also unanimously affirmed the denial of Apple’s request to vacate or modify the permanent injunction based on recent California state court decisions and denied Apple’s request to reassign the case to a different district judge on remand.

On July 31, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed a jury verdict won by Cravath client Epic against Google in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California that Google has engaged in illegal anticompetitive behavior in the distribution of mobile apps and in the handling of in‑app payments. The Ninth Circuit also unanimously affirmed the district court’s permanent injunction against Google. The district court’s injunction prohibits Google from providing benefits to phone manufacturers, app developers and others in exchange for favoring the Google Play Store, prohibits Google from requiring the use of its own payment solution and also requires Google to take steps to restore competition, such as carrying other app stores on the Google Play Store.

On October 7, 2024, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California entered a post‑trial order in favor of Cravath client Epic Games imposing a nationwide three‑year permanent injunction against Google. The injunction, which follows Epic’s jury trial win against Google last year, prohibits Google from paying competitors not to compete and requires Google to distribute alternative app stores on the Google Play Store and provide alternative app stores with access to the Google Play Store’s catalog of apps.