4 ms·

IANAL, but at face value, that seems like it would be, well, quite insane? To emphasize, I've seen plenty of insane stuff in the legal system, but if the argume

IANAL, but at face value, that seems like it would be, well, quite insane? To emphasize, I've seen plenty of insane stuff in the legal system, but if the argument is basically that Epic doesn't have standing because Apple won't let them be in a position where they could have standing, yet they generally offer that position (dev program membership) to the public at large, that seems like some sort of Catch-22-ish nightmare. Again, little surprises me in the legal system these days, but I have to think courts would be very skeptical of an argument where a potential defendant controls the gates that decide whether a potential plaintiff has standing.

EGreg 3y ago
Why can’t developers bring a class action lawsuit or someone else just open a case? They did so in Cameron vs Apple and Google … and settled I believe !
- johnnyanmac 3y ago
  They can. They have little interest to. Very miniscule reward (the only ones winning in a class action are the lawyers... I am due for a solid $20 from Google though!) for a huge risk. I'm repeating the words of another commenter, but most app devs aren't competing against Apple but other devs. They aren't billion dollar businesses that stand to benefit by trying to get a lower rev share.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
    But you've just described the dynamics of every single class action lawsuit. It doesn't matter that the individual devs have little interest, the lawyers have huge interest because winning a sizable class action for a lawyer is equivalent to a having a startup that hits.
    - johnnyanmac 3y ago
      Class actions benefit a lot from certain amount of devs cooperating with the lawyers. I'm unsure how many would in fear of retaliation.
      - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
        There are hundreds of thousands of developers with apps in the App Store. They only need a couple class representatives.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    The purpose of this class action would be to force Apple to change policies going forward (which would presumably give choices to developers that would allow them to save money and increase their profits). Any cash distributed in the settlement would be a bonus. But I do agree that most developers probably wouldn't be interested. They don't want to stand up their own payment processor, or don't care to do integrations with a bunch of third parties, and tolerate the fees to use Apple's payments platform. And for many of these developers, their entire business is built on their relationship with Apple. Getting their developer accounts terminated would mean shutting down entirely.
- dwaite 3y ago
  What would the suit entail? That Apple is giving a new option where they charge less than the previously agreed upon percentage?
SllX 3y ago
It’s not that difficult to follow. As I recall, and feel free to correct me on the chronology if I get something out of order, it went something like this: - Epic pushed an update to Fortnite at some point to the App Store that would allow them to issue an update from the server side to enable a flag to offer Epic’s own payment processor where you could buy in-game currency from them instead of IAP. They then issued a server update toggling this flag and began advertising it to Fortnite players immediately. - Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store for violating their policies. - Epic files suit almost immediately and begins a PR and advertising blitz they had clearly prepped far in advance. In other words, picked a fight. Epic has standing for this suit because they have suffered a harm (Apple removed their app). - After a grace period in which Apple explicitly laid out to Epic that they were risking their developer account, offered them time to get back into compliance and resubmit Fortnite to the App Store, they terminated Epic’s developer program account. This ended Apple’s business relationship with Epic. - That lawsuit has now concluded. Apple took it on the cheek for the anti-steering provisions and has come up with a plan to comply which they are now implementing, all appeals have been exhausted, and Apple and Epic no longer have a business relationship. (I’m missing some details, and the language is vague because I honestly can’t remember the full timeline of events and would rather be vague than wrong here, but that should the gist of it.) Put another way, when you choose to be in a business relationship with Apple, Apple is also agreeing to be in a business relationship with you. Apple has not chosen to re-enter a business relationship with Epic, and has rejected Epic’s offers to do business with them. It’s a simple as that. So how can Epic now argue that they have standing for harm caused by Apple’s plan for compliance that affect the way they do business with developers in their developer program when they are no longer in Apple’s developer program? Once the judge decides they’re done and there’s no more avenues of appeal or additional grounds for appeal, they’ll have no more standing than some random guy off the street who has never signed a single agreement with Apple, not even an iTunes ToS agreement. From what I gather, the Judge wants to be done here too, Epic has had their days in court with the full due process of law but there are other cases to be heard and Epic doesn’t get to hold up the courts any longer because they didn’t get the W they were looking for. Somebody else, if they think they can do it, can try to have a go at Apple next, but even with the one L they took on anti-steering, I think without some new laws being written their entire business model just got a lot more legally resilient. Now why is standing important? Put simply, in theory, you can basically file suit against anyone for anything, but if you didn’t actually suffer a harm, and you can’t convince a Judge in the jurisdiction in which you allegedly suffered the harm that you did, then they’re going to throw out your case. It’s a waste of the courts time if there’s no case to be made, you filed suit in the wrong jurisdiction, or you filed suit under the wrong provisions of the law under which you are arguing you suffered a harm.
dkonofalski 3y ago
They're not in a position where they could have standing, though, since they were in that position and violated the terms of their agreement. The judge has not ordered Apple to reinstate Epic's account and the termination was found to be legal.

EGreg 3y ago

Why can’t developers bring a class action lawsuit or someone else just open a case? They did so in Cameron vs Apple and Google … and settled I believe !

johnnyanmac 3y ago
They can. They have little interest to. Very miniscule reward (the only ones winning in a class action are the lawyers... I am due for a solid $20 from Google though!) for a huge risk. I'm repeating the words of another commenter, but most app devs aren't competing against Apple but other devs. They aren't billion dollar businesses that stand to benefit by trying to get a lower rev share.
- hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
  But you've just described the dynamics of every single class action lawsuit. It doesn't matter that the individual devs have little interest, the lawyers have huge interest because winning a sizable class action for a lawyer is equivalent to a having a startup that hits.
  - johnnyanmac 3y ago
    Class actions benefit a lot from certain amount of devs cooperating with the lawyers. I'm unsure how many would in fear of retaliation.
    - hn_throwaway_99 3y ago
      There are hundreds of thousands of developers with apps in the App Store. They only need a couple class representatives.
- kelnos 3y ago
  The purpose of this class action would be to force Apple to change policies going forward (which would presumably give choices to developers that would allow them to save money and increase their profits). Any cash distributed in the settlement would be a bonus. But I do agree that most developers probably wouldn't be interested. They don't want to stand up their own payment processor, or don't care to do integrations with a bunch of third parties, and tolerate the fees to use Apple's payments platform. And for many of these developers, their entire business is built on their relationship with Apple. Getting their developer accounts terminated would mean shutting down entirely.
dwaite 3y ago
What would the suit entail? That Apple is giving a new option where they charge less than the previously agreed upon percentage?

SllX 3y ago

It’s not that difficult to follow. As I recall, and feel free to correct me on the chronology if I get something out of order, it went something like this: - Epic pushed an update to Fortnite at some point to the App Store that would allow them to issue an update from the server side to enable a flag to offer Epic’s own payment processor where you could buy in-game currency from them instead of IAP. They then issued a server update toggling this flag and began advertising it to Fortnite players immediately. - Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store for violating their policies. - Epic files suit almost immediately and begins a PR and advertising blitz they had clearly prepped far in advance. In other words, picked a fight. Epic has standing for this suit because they have suffered a harm (Apple removed their app). - After a grace period in which Apple explicitly laid out to Epic that they were risking their developer account, offered them time to get back into compliance and resubmit Fortnite to the App Store, they terminated Epic’s developer program account. This ended Apple’s business relationship with Epic. - That lawsuit has now concluded. Apple took it on the cheek for the anti-steering provisions and has come up with a plan to comply which they are now implementing, all appeals have been exhausted, and Apple and Epic no longer have a business relationship. (I’m missing some details, and the language is vague because I honestly can’t remember the full timeline of events and would rather be vague than wrong here, but that should the gist of it.) Put another way, when you choose to be in a business relationship with Apple, Apple is also agreeing to be in a business relationship with you. Apple has not chosen to re-enter a business relationship with Epic, and has rejected Epic’s offers to do business with them. It’s a simple as that. So how can Epic now argue that they have standing for harm caused by Apple’s plan for compliance that affect the way they do business with developers in their developer program when they are no longer in Apple’s developer program? Once the judge decides they’re done and there’s no more avenues of appeal or additional grounds for appeal, they’ll have no more standing than some random guy off the street who has never signed a single agreement with Apple, not even an iTunes ToS agreement. From what I gather, the Judge wants to be done here too, Epic has had their days in court with the full due process of law but there are other cases to be heard and Epic doesn’t get to hold up the courts any longer because they didn’t get the W they were looking for. Somebody else, if they think they can do it, can try to have a go at Apple next, but even with the one L they took on anti-steering, I think without some new laws being written their entire business model just got a lot more legally resilient. Now why is standing important? Put simply, in theory, you can basically file suit against anyone for anything, but if you didn’t actually suffer a harm, and you can’t convince a Judge in the jurisdiction in which you allegedly suffered the harm that you did, then they’re going to throw out your case. It’s a waste of the courts time if there’s no case to be made, you filed suit in the wrong jurisdiction, or you filed suit under the wrong provisions of the law under which you are arguing you suffered a harm.

dkonofalski 3y ago

They're not in a position where they could have standing, though, since they were in that position and violated the terms of their agreement. The judge has not ordered Apple to reinstate Epic's account and the termination was found to be legal.