4 ms·
You are fixated on this because of my imprecise use of the legal term "standing", but it's not really relevant. Standing to bring a suit that will probably get
by modeless 6y ago
You are fixated on this because of my imprecise use of the legal term "standing", but it's not really relevant. Standing to bring a suit that will probably get thrown out on summary judgement is not useful. What's relevant is that there is harm to consumers here and Epic needed to specifically demonstrate it to have a real chance of prevailing in an antitrust case. An allegedly illegal contract should not restrain them from doing so.
- nodamage 6y agoI'm not sure you actually understand the issue, it's not simply a question of terminology. Whether consumer harm exists or not is a question to be determined during the trial, not before.
- modeless 6y agoThe question will be decided during the trial, but the evidence is gathered before.
- nodamage 6y agoYou seem to think if Epic fails to prove consumer harm exists, that their case will not survive summary judgement? This is not true. What Epic needs to do to survive summary judgement is to present a trialable claim that injury to competition has occurred. The trial itself will then determine whether the claim is accurate not. I still don't think Fortnite being in or out of the App Store makes a difference to Epic's case. If Epic's theory of Apple's behavior is correct, then they have a winning case regardless of whatever happened to Fortnite specifically.