3 ms·

Rejecting an application for app store reinstatement would presumably be a new ban, legally speaking, and would be covered by the new law.

SllX 5y ago
Hmm, this assumes Epic is allowed to submit to begin with. Look at it another way: Apple acted willfully to terminate their developer and business relationship with Epic per their developer agreement, and this was an Executive decision, not a bureaucratic one. So a new submission isn’t likely to result in a “rejection” so much as a termination of the account that submitted it. I’m not familiar with Korean law, but a change in any law typically isn’t so cut and dry as to obviously result in a new outcome given the same actors and the same circumstances. Obviously Epic will argue that it should be more cut and dry because it is in their interests to make that argument, but Apple also has their own rights and interests to protect and the means to do so.
hermitdev 5y ago
I don't think you're correct here, but of course I'm not a lawyer. Epic is asking the ban to be undone, an appeal of the existing ban. The ban was for violating TOS, nevermind the TOS presumably has to change for the Korean market. I could see this going either way if it were argued in a US court, truthfully. I think this is more for optics in the larger anticompetitive suit Epic has against Apple going on in other markets. Korea isn't a small market, but it pales in comparison if Epic can use it as a pry bar to get back into US, EU markets on iOS.
- Salgat 5y ago
  This would simply open up a new antitrust lawsuit though, since it's pretty easy to connect the continued ban to 3rd party payments which Apple is now legally required to allow.
  - threeseed 5y ago
    a) Apple has ~30% market share in South Korea. b) Denying access to users who breach Terms of Service is a legally justified position for companies to take. Companies with much larger market share e.g. Facebook, Google do this every day.
    - Salgat 5y ago
      Antitrust doesn't require a monopoly, only a large enough share where you can unfairly manipulate the market using your market share. The smaller the market share, the harder it is to prove it.
- staticman2 5y ago
  It depends on how the law was written but Apple did not ban Epic for "violating TOS", they banned Epic for allowing third party payment. The fact that this form of ban happened to be written in some TOS document is not relevant, you can't use the term "TOS" to shut down the specific analysis of what happened. If the law does not permit banning an app for allowing third party processing then I would expect Epic to have a good case.

SllX 5y ago

Hmm, this assumes Epic is allowed to submit to begin with. Look at it another way: Apple acted willfully to terminate their developer and business relationship with Epic per their developer agreement, and this was an Executive decision, not a bureaucratic one. So a new submission isn’t likely to result in a “rejection” so much as a termination of the account that submitted it. I’m not familiar with Korean law, but a change in any law typically isn’t so cut and dry as to obviously result in a new outcome given the same actors and the same circumstances. Obviously Epic will argue that it should be more cut and dry because it is in their interests to make that argument, but Apple also has their own rights and interests to protect and the means to do so.

hermitdev 5y ago

I don't think you're correct here, but of course I'm not a lawyer. Epic is asking the ban to be undone, an appeal of the existing ban. The ban was for violating TOS, nevermind the TOS presumably has to change for the Korean market. I could see this going either way if it were argued in a US court, truthfully. I think this is more for optics in the larger anticompetitive suit Epic has against Apple going on in other markets. Korea isn't a small market, but it pales in comparison if Epic can use it as a pry bar to get back into US, EU markets on iOS.

Salgat 5y ago
This would simply open up a new antitrust lawsuit though, since it's pretty easy to connect the continued ban to 3rd party payments which Apple is now legally required to allow.
- threeseed 5y ago
  a) Apple has ~30% market share in South Korea. b) Denying access to users who breach Terms of Service is a legally justified position for companies to take. Companies with much larger market share e.g. Facebook, Google do this every day.
  - Salgat 5y ago
    Antitrust doesn't require a monopoly, only a large enough share where you can unfairly manipulate the market using your market share. The smaller the market share, the harder it is to prove it.
staticman2 5y ago
It depends on how the law was written but Apple did not ban Epic for "violating TOS", they banned Epic for allowing third party payment. The fact that this form of ban happened to be written in some TOS document is not relevant, you can't use the term "TOS" to shut down the specific analysis of what happened. If the law does not permit banning an app for allowing third party processing then I would expect Epic to have a good case.