3 ms·

> Why would they? > A business, Apollo, made an offer (lifetime access) to gain marketshare. It worked as Apollo is the defacto Reddit App for iOS. Now they ca

by paulmd 3y ago

> Why would they? > A business, Apollo, made an offer (lifetime access) to gain marketshare. It worked as Apollo is the defacto Reddit App for iOS. Now they cannot hold true to their offer, so they're forced to refund it. This is the price of the bargain Apollo made. That's practically the definition of tortious interference. https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/liability-and-insurance/tortious-interference.html https://www.findlaw.com/smallbusiness/liability-and-insuranc... "The most common form of [tortious interference], however, occurs when an individual forces or induces someone to break a contract they have with a third party. This can happen in many ways: someone could offer below market prices to induce a breach, they could blackmail or threaten someone into violating a contract, or they could make it impossible for the other person to perform and receive the benefits of that contract - by refusing to transport goods, for instance."

kstrauser 3y ago
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel "By way of illustration: If a landlord promises the tenant that he will not exercise his right to terminate a lease, and relying upon that promise the tenant spends money improving the premises, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may prevent the landlord from exercising a right to terminate, even though his promise might not otherwise have been legally binding as a contract. The landlord is precluded from asserting a specific right."
SkyPuncher 3y ago
Sorry, I don't see how that's a textbook case of what you've cited.
- paulmd 3y ago
  OK. Do you have a specific aspect of the test that you don't believe has been satisfied here, or just don't believe in the general concept? Generally speaking the law doesn't care whether or not you personally think it applies, merely that you've broken it.
  - SkyPuncher 3y ago
    I'm not trying to challenge you. I'm just not familiar enough with this area of the law to infer the point you're trying to make.
    - tolmasky 3y ago
      I believe his point is that since the creator of Apollo was in frequent conversations with Reddit, who apparently told him they weren’t planning big changes to the API anytime soon, that then making it impossible for him to deliver the app by instead charging an exorbitant amount (very shortly after telling him there wouldn’t be changes), then that would qualify as forcing him to break the contract with his users. On the other hand, you could argue that since the promise was “lifetime,” this put to much up in the air (vs. like 5 years or something). On the other other hand, you could argue that there is an implied possibility that the app could shut down, given that Reddit itself could for example close down and make it impossible to deliver, which I think courts would plausibly accept as a sufficient delivery of services. Anyways, to the original point, I’m not sure what a court would find, but hopefully now at least the comparison he’s drawing is clear.
gamblor956 3y ago
No, it's not the definition of tortious interference. Reddit did not force or induce Apollo to break a contract with its own customers. Apollo unilaterally chose to do that because it could not afford continued access to Reddit's APIs, which Reddit was not under a legal obligation to continue providing at historical rates that Apollo had based its entire product around, despite long-standing advice not to do so.
- paulmd 3y ago
  > Reddit did not force or induce Apollo to break a contract with its own customers. Apollo unilaterally chose to do that because it could not afford continued access to Reddit's APIs, "I didn't refuse to transport your goods, I just said it would cost a billion dollars per pound to do it and you couldn't afford it" is not the gotcha that you think it is. The law is technical but it's enforced by humans. It's straightforward: Apollo and Reddit have a longstanding business relationship, via these APIs that Reddit has provided for a long time at zero cost. Reddit generally no longer wants third parties to use the API, so they are increasing the price to a level that they know will cause everyone to balk (other third-party clients are closing up too) so that they can direct that traffic to their own native client and first-party sites, while knowing that Apollo has these long-standing business relationships of their own that are built on this relationship with Reddit. In short, reddit is deliberately taking action to sabotage and cause economic harm to a business partner by changing aspects of the relationship that make it impossible for the partner to fulfill their contracts to third parties, so that Reddit can direct that business to themselves instead. That is an improper taking under tortious interference, and the rest of the tests (intent actual economic loss - not just refunds but future income, etc) are trivially satisfied here. I know people are libertarians here but the right to swing your fist ends at someone else's face, and legally speaking if you take actions that you know will result in a business partner being forced to sustain economic losses due to your improper breaking of your business relationship with them, you are generally liable for that damage you cause to the partner. That is the basic concept of tortious interference, you're paying for the damage you caused to your business partner. Swing your fist and hit someone's face and you get to pay for the surgery. (IANAL and Reddit's lawyers would obviously say their conduct is proper, but, generally this is the type of situation where people can unexpectedly get themselves into legitimate legal trouble based on actions they think are perfectly legitimate. And generally they may have been legitimate if you didn't have this prior relationship, that changes things! It's different to not build an API at all, vs having the API be free and have third parties start selling clients and then to stop doing the API.) (As a sibling comment notes, estoppel is another - if you promise something to someone, even a verbal promise, and they take a financially detrimental action on the expectation that you will follow through on your side of the promise and you don't, then you are generally liable for the financial harm you have caused them too. Libertarianism doesn't mean you can wiggle out of contracts, even verbal ones.)
tzs 3y ago
The act that is alleged to be tortious interference has to be improper for it to actually potentially be tortious interference (see farther down on the page you quoted). There's nothing obviously improper about a site replacing a free API with a paid API even if it causes problems for those who relied on the API being free.

by paulmd 3y ago

kstrauser 3y ago

Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estoppel "By way of illustration: If a landlord promises the tenant that he will not exercise his right to terminate a lease, and relying upon that promise the tenant spends money improving the premises, the doctrine of promissory estoppel may prevent the landlord from exercising a right to terminate, even though his promise might not otherwise have been legally binding as a contract. The landlord is precluded from asserting a specific right."

SkyPuncher 3y ago

Sorry, I don't see how that's a textbook case of what you've cited.

paulmd 3y ago
OK. Do you have a specific aspect of the test that you don't believe has been satisfied here, or just don't believe in the general concept? Generally speaking the law doesn't care whether or not you personally think it applies, merely that you've broken it.
- SkyPuncher 3y ago
  I'm not trying to challenge you. I'm just not familiar enough with this area of the law to infer the point you're trying to make.
  - tolmasky 3y ago
    I believe his point is that since the creator of Apollo was in frequent conversations with Reddit, who apparently told him they weren’t planning big changes to the API anytime soon, that then making it impossible for him to deliver the app by instead charging an exorbitant amount (very shortly after telling him there wouldn’t be changes), then that would qualify as forcing him to break the contract with his users. On the other hand, you could argue that since the promise was “lifetime,” this put to much up in the air (vs. like 5 years or something). On the other other hand, you could argue that there is an implied possibility that the app could shut down, given that Reddit itself could for example close down and make it impossible to deliver, which I think courts would plausibly accept as a sufficient delivery of services. Anyways, to the original point, I’m not sure what a court would find, but hopefully now at least the comparison he’s drawing is clear.

gamblor956 3y ago

No, it's not the definition of tortious interference. Reddit did not force or induce Apollo to break a contract with its own customers. Apollo unilaterally chose to do that because it could not afford continued access to Reddit's APIs, which Reddit was not under a legal obligation to continue providing at historical rates that Apollo had based its entire product around, despite long-standing advice not to do so.

paulmd 3y ago
> Reddit did not force or induce Apollo to break a contract with its own customers. Apollo unilaterally chose to do that because it could not afford continued access to Reddit's APIs, "I didn't refuse to transport your goods, I just said it would cost a billion dollars per pound to do it and you couldn't afford it" is not the gotcha that you think it is. The law is technical but it's enforced by humans. It's straightforward: Apollo and Reddit have a longstanding business relationship, via these APIs that Reddit has provided for a long time at zero cost. Reddit generally no longer wants third parties to use the API, so they are increasing the price to a level that they know will cause everyone to balk (other third-party clients are closing up too) so that they can direct that traffic to their own native client and first-party sites, while knowing that Apollo has these long-standing business relationships of their own that are built on this relationship with Reddit. In short, reddit is deliberately taking action to sabotage and cause economic harm to a business partner by changing aspects of the relationship that make it impossible for the partner to fulfill their contracts to third parties, so that Reddit can direct that business to themselves instead. That is an improper taking under tortious interference, and the rest of the tests (intent actual economic loss - not just refunds but future income, etc) are trivially satisfied here. I know people are libertarians here but the right to swing your fist ends at someone else's face, and legally speaking if you take actions that you know will result in a business partner being forced to sustain economic losses due to your improper breaking of your business relationship with them, you are generally liable for that damage you cause to the partner. That is the basic concept of tortious interference, you're paying for the damage you caused to your business partner. Swing your fist and hit someone's face and you get to pay for the surgery. (IANAL and Reddit's lawyers would obviously say their conduct is proper, but, generally this is the type of situation where people can unexpectedly get themselves into legitimate legal trouble based on actions they think are perfectly legitimate. And generally they may have been legitimate if you didn't have this prior relationship, that changes things! It's different to not build an API at all, vs having the API be free and have third parties start selling clients and then to stop doing the API.) (As a sibling comment notes, estoppel is another - if you promise something to someone, even a verbal promise, and they take a financially detrimental action on the expectation that you will follow through on your side of the promise and you don't, then you are generally liable for the financial harm you have caused them too. Libertarianism doesn't mean you can wiggle out of contracts, even verbal ones.)

tzs 3y ago

The act that is alleged to be tortious interference has to be improper for it to actually potentially be tortious interference (see farther down on the page you quoted). There's nothing obviously improper about a site replacing a free API with a paid API even if it causes problems for those who relied on the API being free.