Epic Games Lawsuit, Apple Held In CONTEMPT, Google LOSES Appeal—Game-Changing Antitrust Rulings Reshape App Stores

The Epic Games lawsuits against Apple and Google reached critical milestones in late 2025, with the Ninth Circuit confirming December 12, 2025 that Apple acted in civil contempt by imposing a prohibitive 27% commission and “scare screens” to evade court-ordered payment competition, while upholding July 31, 2025 a sweeping antitrust verdict that found Google illegally monopolized the Android app ecosystem. These rulings represent landmark victories for app developers and consumers, fundamentally reshaping how tech giants must operate their digital marketplaces.

Filed simultaneously in August 2020 after both companies removed Fortnite from their app stores, Epic’s twin antitrust lawsuits challenged the 30% commission structure that generated billions in revenue for Apple and Google while restricting developer freedom and consumer choice.

What Is the Epic Games Lawsuit About?

Epic Games filed two separate but parallel federal antitrust lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California challenging Apple’s App Store policies and Google’s Play Store practices as illegal monopolistic conduct that violated the Sherman Antitrust Act and California’s antitrust laws.

Core Antitrust Allegations

Against Apple:

Monopolizing iOS app distribution by preventing third-party app stores
Illegally tying app distribution to Apple’s proprietary in-app payment system charging 30% commission
Implementing anti-steering provisions that blocked developers from informing users about cheaper payment options outside the App Store
Maintaining a “walled garden” that eliminated competition and consumer choice

Against Google:

Monopolizing Android app distribution through exclusive agreements with phone manufacturers and app developers
Tying Google Play Store access to Google Play Billing requiring 30% commission
Paying competitors through “Project Hug” to discourage them from launching competing app stores
Requiring manufacturers to pre-install Play Store on Android devices as condition of accessing Google services

The Triggering Event

On August 13, 2020, Epic implemented “Project Liberty”—a direct payment system in Fortnite that bypassed Apple and Google’s 30% commission by offering in-game currency 20% cheaper when purchased directly through Epic. Within hours, both Apple and Google removed Fortnite from their app stores for violating developer agreements. Epic immediately filed lawsuits against both companies, revealing the legal actions had been planned in advance.

What Do the Latest Legal Developments Reveal?

Two major appellate rulings in 2025 delivered dramatically different outcomes for Apple and Google, fundamentally altering the competitive landscape for mobile app distribution.

December 12, 2025: Ninth Circuit Confirms Apple Civil Contempt

A unanimous three-judge Ninth Circuit panel affirmed that Apple willfully violated Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ 2021 injunction requiring the company to stop blocking developers from using alternative payment options.

Key Findings:

Apple’s 27% commission on external purchases was “prohibitive” and violated the injunction—no rational developer would use alternative payment options at that rate
Apple’s “scare screen” warning users about external payment risks was designed to discourage consumers from leaving Apple’s payment system
Internal Apple documents revealed executives deliberately chose language to make external purchases “sound scary” and used developer names instead of app names to make screens “even worse”
Apple demonstrated “bad faith” by attempting to burden what it could not prohibit

Epic Games Lawsuit, Apple Held in CONTEMPT, Google LOSES Appeal—Game-Changing Antitrust Rulings Reshape App Stores

Court’s Reasoning: U.S. Circuit Judge Milan Smith wrote that “Apple did not charge any commission; it charged a prohibitive commission,” finding the company had “made a mockery” of the court’s attempt to create payment competition.

The panel confirmed Apple lied and knowingly took an anti-competitive route while claiming compliance, referring the case to federal prosecutors for potential criminal contempt proceedings.

Partial Victory for Apple: The Ninth Circuit reversed one sanction—Judge Rogers’ complete ban on collecting any commission from external purchases. The appeals court ruled this was too punitive and ordered Rogers to determine a “fair commission rate” Apple can charge, providing guidance but no specific percentage.

July 31, 2025: Ninth Circuit Upholds Google Monopoly Verdict

A unanimous Ninth Circuit panel affirmed the December 11, 2023 jury verdict finding Google violated federal and California antitrust laws, plus upheld the October 7, 2024 permanent injunction requiring Google to open its Android ecosystem to competition.

Jury’s Findings (All 11 Counts for Epic):

Google willfully acquired or maintained monopoly power in Android app distribution
Google willfully acquired or maintained monopoly power in Android in-app billing services
Google engaged in anti-competitive conduct to maintain monopolies
Google entered unreasonable agreements restraining trade in violation of Sherman Act Section 1
Google unlawfully tied Google Play Store to Google Play Billing

Three-Year Permanent Injunction (Effective Through November 1, 2027):

Prohibitions:

No exclusive agreements with developers requiring apps only on Play Store
No preventing developers from launching competing Android app platforms
No paying manufacturers, carriers or developers to pre-install Play Store or not pre-install competing stores
No requiring Google Play Billing as condition of Play Store distribution
No imposing restrictions that make competing app stores less attractive

Affirmative Requirements:

Allow alternative app stores on Google Play Store
Provide alternative app stores with access to Play Store’s app catalog (unless developers opt out)
Allow app developers to use alternative billing systems
Permit sideloading of apps from sources outside Play Store
Compliance overseen by three-person committee with Epic and Google representatives

Epic Games Store Returns to Mobile

Following the contempt ruling, Apple approved Fortnite’s return to the iOS App Store in May 2025 after initially blocking the resubmission. Epic immediately launched the Epic Games Store within Google Play in the U.S. following the injunction, with CEO Tim Sweeney calling it a “total victory.”

What Are the Legal Claims in These Cases?

Both lawsuits centered on federal and state antitrust violations, but Epic’s legal theories and evidence differed substantially between the two cases—leading to vastly different outcomes.

Sherman Antitrust Act Violations

Section 1 (Restraint of Trade):

Contracts or agreements that unreasonably restrain competition
Google found guilty: exclusive agreements with manufacturers and developers
Apple cleared: court found agreements did not constitute per se violations

Section 2 (Monopolization):

Unlawfully acquiring or maintaining monopoly power through anti-competitive conduct
Google found guilty: maintained monopolies in app distribution and in-app billing
Apple cleared: court found Apple lacked monopoly power in relevant market

California State Antitrust Laws

California’s Cartwright Act:

State-level prohibition against contracts in restraint of trade
Epic claimed both Apple and Google violated state antitrust protections

California Unfair Competition Law (UCL):

Prohibits unfair, unlawful, or fraudulent business practices
Apple found in violation: anti-steering provisions violated UCL
Google found in violation: maintained illegal monopolies under state law

Key Difference: Market Definition

Apple Case:

Court defined relevant market broadly as “digital mobile gaming transactions”
Included competition from gaming consoles, PCs, and Android devices
Court found Apple lacked monopoly power in this expansive market
Epic won only on UCL violation regarding anti-steering provisions

Google Case:

Jury defined relevant markets narrowly as “Android app distribution” and “Android in-app billing services”
Excluded iOS devices as not substitutable for Android users
Found Google had monopoly power in both defined markets
Epic won on all 11 counts

What Laws or Regulations Apply?

These antitrust cases operate under federal competition law, state antitrust statutes, and California consumer protection law.

Federal Antitrust Framework

Sherman Antitrust Act (1890):

Section 1 prohibits contracts, combinations, or conspiracies in restraint of trade
Section 2 prohibits monopolization, attempted monopolization, or conspiracy to monopolize
Violations can result in injunctive relief, treble damages, and criminal penalties

Clayton Antitrust Act (1914):

Section 16 authorizes private parties to seek injunctive relief for antitrust violations
Provides broad discretion for courts to craft forward-looking remedies
Epic sought only injunctive relief, not monetary damages

Relevant Market Analysis

Antitrust law requires plaintiffs to prove:

Relevant product market (what products compete)
Relevant geographic market (where competition occurs)
Defendant possesses monopoly power in defined market
Defendant acquired or maintained monopoly through anti-competitive conduct

Google’s Relevant Markets (Per Jury):

Product: Android app distribution and Android in-app billing
Geographic: Worldwide excluding China

Apple’s Relevant Market (Per Court):

Product: Digital mobile gaming transactions
Geographic: Global

California Unfair Competition Law

California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 prohibits:

Unlawful business practices (violating other laws)
Unfair business practices (harm to consumers/competitors outweighs benefits)
Fraudulent business practices (likely to deceive consumers)

Apple’s anti-steering provisions violated UCL by threatening “incipient violation of antitrust law” and preventing informed consumer choice.

Civil Contempt Standards

Courts hold parties in civil contempt when there is clear and convincing evidence that:

Valid court order exists
Party had knowledge of order
Party violated order
Courts have broad discretion to fashion coercive remedies compelling compliance

Who Can Be Held Legally Liable?

Apple Inc.

Current Liability:

Found in civil contempt for willfully violating 2021 injunction
Referred to federal prosecutors for potential criminal contempt charges
Must allow alternative payment options with links and buttons without prohibitive commissions
Faces ongoing court supervision to determine fair commission rate

Potential Criminal Contempt: If federal prosecutors pursue criminal charges, Apple executives could face fines or imprisonment for knowingly defying court orders. Judge Rogers found Apple executives lied during evidentiary hearings about their compliance efforts.

Continuing Obligations:

Cannot impose restrictions on how developers present alternative payment options
Cannot display “scare screens” discouraging external purchases
Must allow developers to use buttons, links, and calls to action directing to external purchases
Subject to further sanctions if noncompliance continues

Google LLC

Current Liability:

Found guilty of Sherman Act Section 1 and Section 2 violations
Found guilty of California antitrust law violations
Subject to three-year permanent injunction through November 2027
Must open Android ecosystem to competing app stores and payment systems

Financial Exposure: While Epic sought only injunctive relief, Google faces potential liability in other pending litigation:

Settled 36-state coalition lawsuit for $700 million in September 2023
Faces additional consumer class actions following monopoly finding
Must restructure business practices eliminating billions in exclusive deal revenue

Corporate Officers: While not individually named, corporate officers who participated in anti-competitive agreements could face scrutiny in related enforcement actions.

Epic Games Inc.

Limited Risk:

Plaintiffs generally do not face liability in antitrust actions
Apple’s countersuit for breach of contract was resolved without damages to Epic
Epic proved standing to seek injunctive relief due to Fortnite removal

What Damages Are Being Sought?

Epic explicitly chose not to seek monetary damages in either lawsuit, focusing exclusively on injunctive relief to open mobile app marketplaces to competition.

Rationale for Injunctive-Only Relief

Epic CEO Tim Sweeney stated they sought “injunctive relief to allow fair competition in these two key markets that directly affect hundreds of millions of consumers and tens of thousands, if not more, of third-party app developers.”

The focus on systemic change rather than financial compensation reflected Epic’s strategic goal of fundamentally restructuring mobile app economics for all developers, not just recovering Epic’s own losses.

Value of Injunctive Relief

For Developers:

Eliminates 30% commission on in-app purchases (saving billions industry-wide)
Enables direct relationships with customers
Allows competitive pricing between in-app and external purchases
Creates leverage to negotiate better terms

For Consumers:

Access to cheaper payment options (Epic offered 20% discount for direct payments)
More choice in app distribution channels
Enhanced competition driving innovation and lower prices
Greater transparency about pricing and alternatives

For Epic Specifically:

Fortnite restored to iOS and Android
Epic Games Store launched on mobile platforms
12% commission structure (Epic’s standard) becomes viable alternative to Apple/Google’s 30%

Other Lawsuits Seeking Damages

Separate class action lawsuits filed by consumers and developers seek monetary damages from Apple and Google based on antitrust theories. The Epic verdicts strengthen these claims by establishing liability, but Epic is not a party to those cases.

What Is the Current Status of the Lawsuits?

Both lawsuits remain active with ongoing compliance disputes and appeals, though the major liability questions have been resolved.

Epic v. Apple: Contempt Compliance Phase

Current Posture:

Ninth Circuit affirmed contempt finding December 12, 2025
Case remanded to Judge Rogers to determine fair commission rate for external purchases
Apple appealing Ninth Circuit decision to U.S. Supreme Court (petition pending)
Fortnite available on iOS App Store as of May 2025

Next Steps:

District court hearings on appropriate commission rate
Potential Supreme Court review (discretionary)
Ongoing monitoring of Apple’s compliance with modified injunction
Federal prosecutor review of potential criminal contempt charges

Apple’s Arguments:

Ninth Circuit injunction is unconstitutional First Amendment violation
Zero-commission provision is punitive, not coercive
Injunction conflicts with California Court of Appeal ruling in separate case
Trump v. CASA Supreme Court ruling limits scope of nationwide injunctions

Epic v. Google: Injunction Implementation

Current Posture:

Ninth Circuit affirmed verdict and injunction July 31, 2025
Google petitioning U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari (pending)
Three-year injunction in effect through November 1, 2027
Epic Games Store and Fortnite available through Google Play as of October 2024

Compliance Monitoring:

Three-person committee overseeing Google’s implementation
Google required to report quarterly on compliance measures
Epic can seek enforcement if Google fails to meet injunction terms
District court retains jurisdiction for contempt proceedings if violations occur

Related Litigation: Epic filed second lawsuit against Google and Samsung in September 2024 alleging they are undermining the injunction through Samsung’s “Auto Blocker” feature that discourages third-party app downloads. Case assigned to same judge (James Donato) as coordinated with original Epic v. Google action.

Fortnite Settlement Funds

Separate from the antitrust lawsuits, the FTC secured $245 million settlement from Epic in December 2022 for deceptive billing practices (dark patterns) in Fortnite. The FTC distributed:

First round: $72 million to 629,344 consumers (December 2024)
Second round: $126 million to 969,173 consumers (June 2025)
Claims deadline: July 9, 2025
Additional distributions expected in 2026

This consumer protection settlement is unrelated to the antitrust litigation outcomes.

What Potential Outcomes Exist?

Supreme Court Review

Apple’s Petition: Likelihood of cert grant: Low to moderate

Issue presents ongoing circuit split on scope of UCL remedies
Constitutional questions about forced speech and property rights
Practical importance to tech industry and digital marketplaces

Google’s Petition: Likelihood of cert grant: Moderate to high

Issue preclusion questions (using different market definitions in related cases)
Scope of mandatory injunctive relief in monopolization cases
Tension between monopolist’s “no duty to deal” and remedial injunctions
High-profile case with major economic implications

If Supreme Court Grants Review:

Stay of injunctions likely during appeal
Oral arguments in 2026 term
Decision by June 2027
Could narrow or overturn Ninth Circuit rulings

If Supreme Court Denies Review:

Ninth Circuit rulings become final
Injunctions remain in effect
Apple must allow alternative payments (at fair commission rate)
Google must maintain open Android ecosystem through 2027

Long-Term Industry Impact

Precedential Value: Both rulings establish important antitrust principles for digital platforms:

Platform operators cannot use technical restrictions to maintain monopolies when alternatives exist
Civil contempt findings against major tech companies signal judicial willingness to enforce competition mandates
Mandatory injunctions requiring platform openness are viable antitrust remedies
Different market definitions can lead to different liability outcomes even for similar conduct

Global Regulatory Momentum: These cases accelerate worldwide movement toward app store competition:

EU Digital Markets Act (DMA) requires alternative app stores in Europe
UK Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCC) imposes similar requirements
Japan’s Smartphone Act (SSCPA) mandates sideloading capability
Other jurisdictions likely to adopt comparable regulations

Settlement Possibilities

Apple: Unlikely to settle given company’s consistent opposition to alternative app stores and ideological commitment to App Store control. Apple argues its “walled garden” is essential for security, privacy, and user experience.

Google: Already settled 36-state lawsuit for $700 million. May negotiate modifications to injunction scope or duration if Supreme Court review fails, but unlikely to eliminate core competitive requirements.

What Similar Lawsuits Provide Legal Precedent?

United States v. Microsoft (2001)

The landmark Microsoft antitrust case provides the closest historical parallel:

Government alleged Microsoft monopolized PC operating systems and bundled Internet Explorer
District court found liability but appellate court reversed breakup remedy
Settlement required interoperability and monitoring, similar to Google injunction structure
Microsoft case demonstrates tech monopoly findings can lead to lasting behavior changes even without structural breakup

Relevance to Epic Cases:

Confirms tying arrangements can violate antitrust law when they maintain monopoly power
Demonstrates courts’ willingness to impose behavioral remedies on platform operators
Shows difficulty of crafting effective remedies without ongoing monitoring

Lorain Journal Co. v. United States (1951)

Supreme Court precedent on monopolist refusals to deal:

Newspaper with local monopoly refused to accept ads from businesses that advertised on competing radio station
Court found violation of Sherman Act Section 2
Established principle that monopolists cannot leverage dominance to exclude competitors

Relevance: Google’s exclusive agreements with manufacturers and developers to exclude competing app stores mirror Lorain Journal’s exclusionary conduct.

Image Technical Services v. Eastman Kodak (1997)

Ninth Circuit case on monopolist pricing and tying:

Found Kodak illegally tied replacement parts to repair services
Established that high prices can constitute exclusionary conduct when they deter competition
Directly cited by Ninth Circuit in Epic v. Google injunction analysis

Relevance: Apple’s 27% commission ruled “prohibitive” based on similar reasoning—price high enough to eliminate rational use of alternative payment systems.

Qualcomm FTC Litigation (2019-2021)

FTC challenged Qualcomm’s patent licensing practices in mobile chip market:

District court found antitrust violations and ordered injunctive relief
Ninth Circuit reversed, finding FTC failed to prove harm to competition
Demonstrates high bar for proving monopolization in tech markets

Contrast with Epic Cases: Epic succeeded by presenting extensive evidence of anti-competitive harm, including testimony from developers and manufacturers about Google’s exclusive deals preventing competition.

What Legal Issues Are Being Challenged?

Balance Between Innovation and Competition

Central Tension: Apple and Google argue their integrated ecosystems provide consumer benefits:

Enhanced security through vetting processes
Seamless user experience
Privacy protections through centralized payment systems
Developer tools and services justify 30% commission

Courts must determine when these claimed efficiencies become pretexts for anti-competitive conduct that harms consumers and developers.

Judicial Approach:

Google case: Jury rejected security justifications as pretext for monopoly maintenance
Apple case: Judge Rogers found security concerns did not justify complete prohibition on alternative payment information

Scope of Remedial Authority

Constitutional Limits: Apple argues injunction violates First Amendment by compelling speech (forcing Apple to host links to external payment options) and Fifth Amendment by depriving Apple of property rights in its intellectual property.

Court’s Response: Antitrust remedies can require affirmative conduct by monopolists to restore competition, even when such requirements might be unconstitutional if applied to non-monopolists. Courts have broad equitable discretion under Clayton Act Section 16.

Platform vs. Infrastructure

Critical Question: Are app stores proprietary products Apple and Google can control as they choose, or are they essential infrastructure that must remain open to competition?

Legal Framework:

Essential facilities doctrine: monopolist controlling essential facility must provide access on reasonable terms
Epic argued app stores are essential facilities; Apple/Google denied this characterization
Courts avoided direct essential facilities analysis but reached similar remedial outcomes

Nationwide Injunctions

Trump v. CASA (2025) raised questions about lower courts’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions. Apple argues Ninth Circuit injunction exceeds constitutional limits.

Ninth Circuit’s Response: Distinguished CASA as involving different legal context (separation of powers in immigration law). Found nationwide scope appropriate when:

Plaintiff proves injury from nationwide conduct
Remedy must address nationwide market to be effective
Geographic market defined at trial was worldwide

Why These Cases Matter for Legal Understanding

Antitrust Law Evolution for Digital Markets

These cases represent first major judicial victories establishing tech platform liability for app store practices, signaling courts’ willingness to apply traditional antitrust principles to digital ecosystems previously given wide latitude.

Key Developments:

Rejection of “walled garden” defense when used to maintain monopoly
Recognition that technical restrictions can constitute anti-competitive conduct
Validation of mandatory injunctions requiring platform openness
Establishment that zero-price markets (ad-supported, free apps) still have anti-competitive harm

Civil Contempt as Enforcement Tool

Apple contempt finding demonstrates courts’ increasing frustration with tech companies’ “malicious compliance”—technically following court orders while undermining their purpose.

Significance:

Courts will look beyond facial compliance to actual competitive effects
Internal documents revealing bad-faith compliance strategies carry significant weight
Criminal contempt referrals signal judicial willingness to escalate enforcement
Sets precedent for monitoring other tech antitrust remedies

Market Definition Determining Liability

The contrasting outcomes—Apple cleared, Google liable—despite similar conduct demonstrates how market definition drives antitrust outcomes.

Lessons:

Narrow market definitions favor plaintiffs (Google case)
Broad market definitions favor defendants (Apple case)
Platform “switching costs” critical to market definition
Two-sided market effects complicate traditional antitrust analysis

Frequently Asked Questions

What is the Epic Games lawsuit about in simple terms?

Epic Games filed two antitrust lawsuits in August 2020 challenging Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play Store policies that require app developers to use the companies’ payment systems and pay 30% commissions. Epic argued these requirements constitute illegal monopolization. The lawsuits resulted in dramatically different outcomes: Apple was found in contempt for evading compliance but avoided antitrust liability, while Google lost completely on all antitrust claims.

Did Epic Games win or lose against Apple?

Mixed result. Epic mostly lost on antitrust claims—Apple was cleared of monopolization violations. However, Epic won on one claim: Apple’s anti-steering provisions violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. More significantly, when Apple attempted to evade the resulting injunction by imposing a 27% commission and “scare screens,” Epic won a contempt ruling in April 2025, confirmed by the Ninth Circuit in December 2025. Fortnite returned to iOS in May 2025.

Did Epic Games win against Google?

Total victory. A unanimous jury found Google violated federal and California antitrust laws on all 11 counts in December 2023. The court imposed a three-year injunction requiring Google to open its Android ecosystem to competing app stores and payment systems. The Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed both the verdict and injunction on July 31, 2025. Epic Games Store and Fortnite are now available through Google Play.

What is the current status of Fortnite on mobile devices?

Fortnite is available on both iOS and Android as of 2025. Apple approved Fortnite’s return to the App Store in May 2025 following contempt rulings. Google’s Play Store has carried Fortnite since October 2024 under the permanent injunction. Epic also launched its own Epic Games Store on both platforms, competing directly with Apple and Google’s stores.

What does the Apple contempt ruling mean for developers?

Developers can now include buttons, links, and calls to action in their apps directing users to external payment options without Apple imposing prohibitive commissions or restrictions. The district court must determine a “fair commission rate” Apple can charge for external purchases, but it cannot be so high that no rational developer would use it. Developers gain leverage to negotiate better terms and offer consumers lower prices outside Apple’s payment system.

How does the Google injunction change Android app distribution?

For three years (through November 2027), Google must allow competing app stores on Google Play, permit sideloading from any source, provide rival stores access to Play’s app catalog, and stop making exclusive deals that favor Play Store. Developers can use alternative billing systems without Google’s 30% commission. This fundamentally opens the Android ecosystem to competition that was previously blocked by Google’s monopolistic practices.

Will the Supreme Court overturn these rulings?

Uncertain. Both Apple and Google are expected to petition for Supreme Court review. Google’s petition faces moderate-to-high odds of being granted due to significant legal questions about mandatory injunctive relief and market definition issues. Apple’s petition faces lower odds but raises important constitutional questions. If the Supreme Court denies review, the Ninth Circuit rulings become final. A Supreme Court decision would not come before 2027 if certiorari is granted.

What is the difference between the Apple and Google cases?

The key difference was market definition. In the Apple case, the court defined the relevant market broadly as “digital mobile gaming transactions” including consoles, PCs, and Android devices—finding Apple lacked monopoly power. In the Google case, the jury defined markets narrowly as “Android app distribution” and “Android in-app billing”—finding Google had monopoly power. Google also engaged in more explicit anti-competitive conduct through exclusive deals and payments to suppress competition, while Apple relied primarily on technical restrictions.

Last Updated: December 19, 2025
Sources: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit opinions, U.S. District Court filings Northern District of California, FTC press releases, verified legal analysis from established news outlets

Legal Disclaimer: This article provides general information about pending and concluded litigation and does not constitute legal advice. Court rulings may be subject to appeal or modification. Readers should consult qualified attorneys for specific legal guidance.

About the Author

Sarah Klein, JD, is a licensed attorney and legal content strategist with over 12 years of experience across civil, criminal, family, and regulatory law. At All About Lawyer, she covers a wide range of legal topics — from high-profile lawsuits and courtroom stories to state traffic laws and everyday legal questions — all with a focus on accuracy, clarity, and public understanding.
Her writing blends real legal insight with plain-English explanations, helping readers stay informed and legally aware.
Read more about Sarah