I’m not the regulator so I’ll have to see what they say in their investigation that’s due to conclude soon. They’re certainly more qualified than you or I to outline if and how Apple may be breaking the law.
That's the issue... none of us are the regulators so saying Apple is breaking the law is really not up to us.
At this stage we know the EU created a DMA, said they will fine Apple for non-compliance and Apple made significant changes to iOS and AppStore.
The EU now making claims it isnt happy with those changes and will look further.
That's it.
Anything else is conjecture. And frankly defamatory. If you publicly damage someone's reputation (with allegations) you open yourself up to legal recourse. Apple share price and reputation could be affected. Do you want to be sued over that?
I'm happy that Apple adheres to laws in any country it does business.
It is up to Apple to modify what it wants or pull out of doing business there. Like they did in Russia.
Apple could have chosen a different path on this.
So far we've had people suggest they pull out of EU, user select an install of Android, open it up like MacOS or do what they did and modify iOS to allow alt app stores and payments.
Apple had one further choice which might not have passed malicious compliance: open EU iOS up to be so open you could do whatever and make that an iOS fork. A one off to comply and never get further updates. It would have met the DMA but it would hurt customers there with no more features later on. Perhaps Apple do actually comply reasonably after all while still trying to do what's best for customers everywhere?
And frankly defamatory. If you publicly damage someone's reputation (with allegations) you open yourself up to legal recourse. Apple share price and reputation could be affected. Do you want to be sued over that?
I'm happy that Apple adheres to laws in any country it does business.
It is up to Apple to modify what it wants or pull out of doing business there. Like they did in Russia.
I know its billions of dollars, but if I was Apple I would start pulling out of the EU. Its also billions in tax revenue for those countries. Consumers in the EU would go nuts if Apple pulled out and then politicians would start to cave.
do you pay tax? do you push your claim to the limit to maximise a return?
what's the difference here?
the EU wrote some vague directives. Apple interpreted them and made changes, quite significant ones.
It's a bad as someone saying "i cant tell you what I want but I'll know it when i see it".
those are the worst customers.
My personal needs (and every other purchaser of iOS devices) who are happy with the way the device worked and approved apps outweighs your needs because we knew and agreed with what we bought.
Do we like every single thing? would we like more? sure.
But we happily spent the money knowing the limits anyway.
You have a choice. Buy that Android device that lets you install anything.
We dont have a choice now to keep the iOS secure device we want because the EU forced changed.
The EU says it is all for consumer choice. They have taken OUR CHOICE AWAY.
You have a choice. You can buy an iPhone and only buy things from Apple's App Store. Nothing has changed there. Now you can also buy an iPhone and buy apps on a different app store if you want to (although Apple is doing everything they can to make this non-viable). The EU has given consumers more choice, and for some illogical reason, that upsets you. This competition has already brought game emulators to the App Store world wide and other anti-competitive polies will follow. The regulations are already proving why they are beneficial.
Also, news flash, locked in app store is not a reason that most people buy iPhones. The tech inclined tolerate it and the less tech literate don't know they are even having a choice taken away.
And i have no issue with Apple losing when breaking laws.
That's what everybody and business lives under.
Conjecture is no defence against stating something that is libelous.
We have many people here who have been taken to court over social media comments.
One guy said six words on Twitter "You are just a rape apologist" about a politician.
It was his opinion. But started that way it went to court.
So saying Apple is breaking the law when all the EU is saying they are looking closer at it goes well beyond what is happening currently.
Apple pays tax and EU also collects VATs.
And the stores employ people and distribution etc.
There is a flow on and wider reach than just not selling phones.
At this stage we know the EU created a DMA, said they will fine Apple for non-compliance and Apple made significant changes to iOS and AppStore.
The EU now making claims it isnt happy with those changes and will look further.
That's it.
Anything else is conjecture. And frankly defamatory. If you publicly damage someone's reputation (with allegations) you open yourself up to legal recourse. Apple share price and reputation could be affected. Do you want to be sued over that?
Your summary is factually inaccurate, but don't worry, no one here is being sued for libel.
"The EU now making claims it isnt happy with those changes and will look further."
That happened in March. It is currently June. The EU is not making these claims now. They are now saying they found very serious issues. They obviously can't name them before they release the results of the probe though.
You have a choice. You can buy an iPhone and only buy things from Apple's App Store. Nothing has changed there. Now you can also buy an iPhone and buy apps on a different app store if you want to (although Apple is doing everything they can to make this non-viable). The EU has given consumers more choice, and for some illogical reason, that upsets you. This competition has already brought game emulators to the App Store world wide and other anti-competitive polies will follow. The regulations are already proving why they are beneficial.
Also, news flash, locked in app store is not a reason that most people buy iPhones. The tech inclined tolerate it and the less tech literate don't know they are even having a choice taken away.
Apple was forced to add code that allow other stores. Any code or change to methodology opens up more vectors for attack. Thats true of any code. You know that.
You dont have to be a fanboy to know the thinking behind the walled garden is about security.
And that builds trust. It's why people spend more in Apples AppStore than in Googles or elsewhere.
Devs tell you they make more money from iOS devices.
That's not a newsflash. That's long demonstrated fact.
Help me understand this. The DMA mandates that Apple must open up an alternate App Store on Apple's devices. Additionally, Apple may not make any money from the alternate App Store because of its gatekeeper status. If this is so, who maintains the alternate App Store? Who maintains its security? What are its costs? What are the costs to Apple? Can trojan apps in the alternate App Store integrate and infect the Apple ecosystem?
No, apple must let others (such as devs) open up alternate appstores or distribute apps to users directly over the web (to be installed directly on devices, or sideloaded) just like they do for desktop computers.
I personally don’t plan on side loading apps. But at what point is Apple just going to have to open up iOS to be like macOS where I can download any app I wanted from any source without Apple involvement.
Apple was forced to add code that allow other stores. Any code or change to methodology opens up more vectors for attack. Thats true of any code. You know that.
You dont have to be a fanboy to know the thinking behind the walled garden is about security.
And that builds trust. It's why people spend more in Apples AppStore than in Googles or elsewhere.
Devs tell you they make more money from iOS devices .
That's not a newsflash. That's long demonstrated fact.
No that isn’t why. iphone owners didn’t make a choice until now, they spent their money in Apple’s appstore because it was the only place where they could spend it as long as they owned an iphone when it came to apps. In the EU they can now choose, and some will choose to continue using only the appstore and others will choose to look for apps elsewhere. But Apple didn’t open up that choice willingly, they had to be forced to do it.
Great, just pointing out that Apple doesn’t always follow the law, after you had said Apple follows the laws in the countries that it does business in.
Conjecture is no defence against stating something that is libelous.
We have many people here who have been taken to court over social media comments.
One guy said six words on Twitter "You are just a rape apologist" about a politician.
It was his opinion. But started that way it went to court.
So saying Apple is breaking the law when all the EU is saying they are looking closer at it goes well beyond what is happening currently.
Do you realize the guy you’re referring to lost his libel case in Australia? Lol. And I’m in the U.S. where our freedom of speech is more encompassing than most other countries and the bar for proving libel is very high. I bid Apple good luck.
You have a choice. Buy that Android device that lets you install anything.
We dont have a choice now to keep the iOS secure device we want because the EU forced changed.
The EU says it is all for consumer choice. They have taken OUR CHOICE AWAY.
All apps (that are newly admissible because of the DMA) will still be reviewed by Apple.
And you can choose to limit your software downloads to downloads from Apple’s App Store - just like before.
Apple is not telling app devs they cant put apps in other stores and charge different prices.
They aren’t telling them - but they’re making it financially unviable to compete in/with other stores through discriminative pricing (for popular free to download apps).
Apple was forced to add code that allow other stores.
We’ve been able to download content from web sites or in apps for more than a decade. And that includes installable apps.
Apple was forced to add code that allow other stores. Any code or change to methodology opens up more vectors for attack. Thats true of any code. You know that.
Slapping on a few settings and warning messages here and there does not mean it opens up more attack vectors.
Not in any relevant way. Particularly since you fail to address the elephant in the room: iOS users have been able to download and install completely unverified apps for many years (no developer account or Mac necessary).
I know its billions of dollars, but if I was Apple I would start pulling out of the EU. Its also billions in tax revenue for those countries. Consumers in the EU would go nuts if Apple pulled out and then politicians would start to cave.
You think the EU and UK would change the laws and regulations every other company has to abide by because a segment of the mobile sector has a few annoyed consumers who want their iPhones? People would move on to other platforms and those platforms would be making their offers very attractive to do so. I’d be a little annoyed by losing my iPhone, but life goes on and I’m not naive enough to think I couldn’t get my smartphone needs via Samsung or other Android manufacturers.
In reality, Apple does very well out of Europe and always has, pulling out would be disastrous for them. The market potential is twice the size of the United States and they are not the primary mobile platform here anyway. They’ve invested too much into this market to walk away from billions in revenue. Costs would have to go up around the World too, not likely.
Conjecture (mind that they have to comply effectively with the law and its objectives). You said it yourself:
“At this stage we know the EU created a DMA, said they will fine Apple for non-compliance and Apple made significant changes to iOS and AppStore. The EU now making claims it isnt happy with those changes and will look further. That's it. Anything else is conjecture”
If you make wrong factual claims with the intention (and reasonable chances) of affecting Apple’s share price, that’s punishable according to securities laws. macrumors.com forum isn’t the audience to warrant an investigation into violations of security laws.
Legal opinion isn’t a factual claim. Many legal professionals have voiced their opinion publicly on whether Apple isn in compliance or not.
Considering that @wbeasleylives in Australia, he couldn’t have missed that.
To be fair though, wbeasley only said it went to court - not that he was convicted.
My personal needs (and every other purchaser of iOS devices) who are happy with the way the device worked and approved apps outweighs your needs because we knew and agreed with what we bought.
Do we like every single thing? would we like more? sure.
But we happily spent the money knowing the limits anyway.
You have a choice. Buy that Android device that lets you install anything.
We dont have a choice now to keep the iOS secure device we want because the EU forced changed.
The EU says it is all for consumer choice. They have taken OUR CHOICE AWAY.
You need to stop telling everyone who wants iOS to change to just buy an Android phone. Most of us here are iOS users, and our desires for the platform are just as valid as yours. At some point, Apple will change their policies, as they did with allowing console emulation on iOS and the switch to USB-C (credit to the EU for both, ultimately), and the sky won't fall in.
Apple make some great products, but that doesn't mean they deserve to be defended to the hilt at all times. As a customers and even enthusiasts, we should be holding their feet to the fire, not mindlessly cheerleading every decision they make, especially where those decisions are nakedly self-serving or out of touch.
If Apple isn’t allowed to make money on apps developed for their devices with their coding platform the answer is going to be simple. The developer entry cost is going up significantly. Xcode licensees will be a contract with Apple with varied costs and contact renewals. It’s going to take a ton of restructuring, and Apple is stalling while they make the necessary plans. Do what with wish with your app distribution but do people really think that multi-million/billion dollar corps are going to pay 99/299 a year and have a free pass? It’s insanely absurd.
Also, news flash, locked in app store is not a reason that most people buy iPhones. The tech inclined tolerate it and the less tech literate don't know they are even having a choice taken away. I guess fanboyism can make one believe that taking away choice is actually giving you a choice though.
The majority of victims were aged 30 to 49, and were most frequently targeted on Facebook and Instagram.
www.channelnewsasia.com
A lot of things tend to be package deals. There’s good in bad, and bad in good and I wish people here would acknowledge that rather than pretend that sideloading is pure upside with zero drawbacks at all.
12. The gatekeeper shall apply Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application stores
Overview
Apple’s Commission Fee on Third-Party Transactions (CTF) appears to be a strategic move to maintain its control over app distribution and in-app purchases. However, this fee likely violates several clauses of the DMA, which aims to foster fair competition and prevent gatekeepers from exploiting their dominant positions.
Apple’s Stance and Developer Obligations
1. Apple’s Commission as a Licensing Fee:
• Apple asserts that its commission is a licensing fee for using its platform and services. However, this position faces legal challenges under the DMA, which mandates fair and non-discriminatory access to core platform services.
2. Services Utilized by Developers:
• Developers use Apple’s hardware, operating system, APIs, and security features. The DMA stipulates that developers should have free access to these essential services without being compelled to pay exorbitant fees.
3. Competing Application Stores:
• Competing app stores cannot operate on equal terms if they must pay a commission to Apple, which charges no fees for its own store. This creates an unfair competitive landscape.
4. Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) Terms:
• If developers use Apple’s logos, iconography and IP Apple must apply FRAND terms. The CTF, however, contradicts these principles by imposing discriminatory fees on developers who choose third-party platforms.
Digital Markets Act Compliance
Article 5: Obligations for Gatekeepers
• Clause 3: Apple must not prevent business users from offering products at different prices or conditions through third-party services.
• Violation: The CTF imposes additional costs, reducing developers’ ability to offer competitive prices through alternative channels.
• Clause 4: Apple must allow free communication and promotion of offers.
• Violation: The CTF indirectly restricts developers by imposing costs for using alternative channels.
• Clause 5: Apple must allow end users to access and use content and services acquired from third parties.
• Violation: The CTF imposes additional costs on users who download apps from alternative stores, reducing accessibility.
• Clause 7: Apple should not require the use of its payment systems.
• Violation: The CTF effectively forces developers to use Apple’s payment systems to avoid extra fees.
• Clause 8: Apple should not require developers to subscribe to additional services.
• Violation: By charging a CTF on third-party transactions, Apple forces developers to use its services to avoid additional fees.
Article 6: Obligations for Gatekeepers (Further Specifications)
• Clause 4: Apple must allow third-party software installation and use.
• Violation: The CTF discourages developers from offering apps through alternative stores, contrary to the DMA’s requirements.
• Clause 7: Apple must provide free interoperability with its hardware and software.
• Violation: Charging a fee for third-party transactions undermines the principle of free interoperability.
• Clause 10: Apple must provide real-time access to data.
• Violation: The CTF involves reporting transaction data to Apple, giving it access to competitors’ data, which it could exploit.
• Clause 12: Apple must apply FRAND general conditions for access to its app stores.
• Violation: The CTF imposes discriminatory fees, violating the FRAND principles by treating developers using third-party services differently.
Expanded Scope Under the DMA
• Article 5(4): Developers can communicate and promote offers to end users and conclude contracts without using the gatekeeper’s core platform services, implying developers can include links to their websites to avoid the 30% commission.
• Significance: This provision allows developers to bypass Apple’s commission by directing users to their websites for purchases, aligning with the DMA’s goal to reduce gatekeeper dominance.
• Article 5(5): End users can acquire items within an app even if purchased outside the app store, broadening the Reader App exemption to all apps.
• Significance: This provision allows all apps to benefit from the exemption, preventing Apple from collecting a commission on purchases made outside its app store.
Key Points of Contention
1. Licensing Fee as Commission: Apple argues that its commission is a licensing fee for using its hardware and APIs. This perspective, however, does not align with the DMA’s aim to facilitate open and fair access to core platform services without unjustified costs.
2. Access to Services Without Fees: The DMA stipulates that gatekeepers like Apple must allow business users and end users to access and use core platform services without unnecessary restrictions or fees (Article 5(3), 5(5), 5(7), 5(8), 6(4), 6(7)). By imposing a commission, Apple effectively hinders free access to these services.
3. Competing App Stores: Apple’s fee structure creates a competitive disadvantage for third-party app stores, which must pay a commission to Apple, unlike Apple’s own App Store. This situation conflicts with the DMA’s mandate for non-discriminatory access and fair competition (Article 6(12)).
Relevant DMA Clauses
• Article 5(3), (4), (5), (7), (8): These clauses emphasize that gatekeepers should not impose restrictions or additional costs on business users for using or promoting alternative intermediation services or payment systems.
• Article 6(4), (7), (10), (12): These clauses focus on ensuring that gatekeepers allow interoperability, free access to necessary hardware and software features, and fair terms of access for business users.
Analysis of Apple’s Compliance Tactics
Commission as Licensing Fee
Apple’s framing of its commission as a licensing fee is problematic under the DMA. The commission can be seen as a financial barrier that restricts developers’ ability to freely access Apple’s hardware and APIs, contrary to the DMA’s objective of fostering an open and competitive digital environment.
Competitive Disadvantage for Third-Party Stores
The commission also imposes a cost on third-party app stores, making it difficult for them to compete on equal terms with Apple’s own App Store. This creates a situation where alternative app stores are less attractive to both developers and users, thus perpetuating Apple’s dominance.
Restriction on Alternative Payment Systems
By charging fees for the use of third-party payment processors, Apple restricts the ability of developers to offer competitive pricing through these alternatives. This restriction reduces consumer choice and stifles competition, in direct violation of DMA provisions.
Conclusion
Apple’s compliance strategy with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) appears to be structured around framing its commission fees as licensing fees for using its proprietary systems and services. This approach, however, raises several legal questions and potential violations of the DMA, which aims to ensure fair competition and consumer choice in the digital marketplace.
Apple’s CTF is likely in violation of several DMA clauses by:
• Imposing financial disincentives for using third-party services.
• Restricting developers’ ability to freely promote and communicate offers.
• Forcing developers to use Apple’s services through indirect fees.
• Limiting free interoperability and access to core platform services.
• Violating FRAND principles by discriminating against developers using alternative platforms.
The CTF (Core Technology Fee) introduced by Apple is a clear violation of the DMA, specifically Articles 5 and 6. It imposes undue financial burdens on developers and third-party services, restricts free and fair access to core platform services, and perpetuates Apple’s market dominance.
Apple was forced to add code that allow other stores. Any code or change to methodology opens up more vectors for attack. Thats true of any code. You know that.
You dont have to be a fanboy to know the thinking behind the walled garden is about security.
And that builds trust. It's why people spend more in Apples AppStore than in Googles or elsewhere.
Devs tell you they make more money from iOS devices.
That's not a newsflash. That's long demonstrated fact.
Point to me where in the DMA was Apple forced to add code that allows other stores?
The only difference between my iPhone before DMA and afterwards is the need of a enterprise/developer certificate to install alternative AppStores. ( allowing me to certificate whatever app i want to install on device)
Apple just opted with the most complicated and expensive solution
12. The gatekeeper shall apply Fair, Reasonable, And Non-Discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application stores
Overview
Apple’s Commission Fee on Third-Party Transactions (CTF) appears to be a strategic move to maintain its control over app distribution and in-app purchases. However, this fee likely violates several clauses of the DMA, which aims to foster fair competition and prevent gatekeepers from exploiting their dominant positions.
Apple’s Stance and Developer Obligations
1. Apple’s Commission as a Licensing Fee:
• Apple asserts that its commission is a licensing fee for using its platform and services. However, this position faces legal challenges under the DMA, which mandates fair and non-discriminatory access to core platform services.
2. Services Utilized by Developers:
• Developers use Apple’s hardware, operating system, APIs, and security features. The DMA stipulates that developers should have free access to these essential services without being compelled to pay exorbitant fees.
3. Competing Application Stores:
• Competing app stores cannot operate on equal terms if they must pay a commission to Apple, which charges no fees for its own store. This creates an unfair competitive landscape.
4. Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) Terms:
• If developers use Apple’s logos, iconography and IP Apple must apply FRAND terms. The CTF, however, contradicts these principles by imposing discriminatory fees on developers who choose third-party platforms.
Digital Markets Act Compliance
Article 5: Obligations for Gatekeepers
• Clause 3: Apple must not prevent business users from offering products at different prices or conditions through third-party services.
• Violation: The CTF imposes additional costs, reducing developers’ ability to offer competitive prices through alternative channels.
• Clause 4: Apple must allow free communication and promotion of offers.
• Violation: The CTF indirectly restricts developers by imposing costs for using alternative channels.
• Clause 5: Apple must allow end users to access and use content and services acquired from third parties.
• Violation: The CTF imposes additional costs on users who download apps from alternative stores, reducing accessibility.
• Clause 7: Apple should not require the use of its payment systems.
• Violation: The CTF effectively forces developers to use Apple’s payment systems to avoid extra fees.
• Clause 8: Apple should not require developers to subscribe to additional services.
• Violation: By charging a CTF on third-party transactions, Apple forces developers to use its services to avoid additional fees.
Article 6: Obligations for Gatekeepers (Further Specifications)
• Clause 4: Apple must allow third-party software installation and use.
• Violation: The CTF discourages developers from offering apps through alternative stores, contrary to the DMA’s requirements.
• Clause 7: Apple must provide free interoperability with its hardware and software.
• Violation: Charging a fee for third-party transactions undermines the principle of free interoperability.
• Clause 10: Apple must provide real-time access to data.
• Violation: The CTF involves reporting transaction data to Apple, giving it access to competitors’ data, which it could exploit.
• Clause 12: Apple must apply FRAND general conditions for access to its app stores.
• Violation: The CTF imposes discriminatory fees, violating the FRAND principles by treating developers using third-party services differently.
Expanded Scope Under the DMA
• Article 5(4): Developers can communicate and promote offers to end users and conclude contracts without using the gatekeeper’s core platform services, implying developers can include links to their websites to avoid the 30% commission.
• Significance: This provision allows developers to bypass Apple’s commission by directing users to their websites for purchases, aligning with the DMA’s goal to reduce gatekeeper dominance.
• Article 5(5): End users can acquire items within an app even if purchased outside the app store, broadening the Reader App exemption to all apps.
• Significance: This provision allows all apps to benefit from the exemption, preventing Apple from collecting a commission on purchases made outside its app store.
Key Points of Contention
1. Licensing Fee as Commission: Apple argues that its commission is a licensing fee for using its hardware and APIs. This perspective, however, does not align with the DMA’s aim to facilitate open and fair access to core platform services without unjustified costs.
2. Access to Services Without Fees: The DMA stipulates that gatekeepers like Apple must allow business users and end users to access and use core platform services without unnecessary restrictions or fees (Article 5(3), 5(5), 5(7), 5(8), 6(4), 6(7)). By imposing a commission, Apple effectively hinders free access to these services.
3. Competing App Stores: Apple’s fee structure creates a competitive disadvantage for third-party app stores, which must pay a commission to Apple, unlike Apple’s own App Store. This situation conflicts with the DMA’s mandate for non-discriminatory access and fair competition (Article 6(12)).
Relevant DMA Clauses
• Article 5(3), (4), (5), (7), (8): These clauses emphasize that gatekeepers should not impose restrictions or additional costs on business users for using or promoting alternative intermediation services or payment systems.
• Article 6(4), (7), (10), (12): These clauses focus on ensuring that gatekeepers allow interoperability, free access to necessary hardware and software features, and fair terms of access for business users.
Analysis of Apple’s Compliance Tactics
Commission as Licensing Fee
Apple’s framing of its commission as a licensing fee is problematic under the DMA. The commission can be seen as a financial barrier that restricts developers’ ability to freely access Apple’s hardware and APIs, contrary to the DMA’s objective of fostering an open and competitive digital environment.
Competitive Disadvantage for Third-Party Stores
The commission also imposes a cost on third-party app stores, making it difficult for them to compete on equal terms with Apple’s own App Store. This creates a situation where alternative app stores are less attractive to both developers and users, thus perpetuating Apple’s dominance.
Restriction on Alternative Payment Systems
By charging fees for the use of third-party payment processors, Apple restricts the ability of developers to offer competitive pricing through these alternatives. This restriction reduces consumer choice and stifles competition, in direct violation of DMA provisions.
Conclusion
Apple’s compliance strategy with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) appears to be structured around framing its commission fees as licensing fees for using its proprietary systems and services. This approach, however, raises several legal questions and potential violations of the DMA, which aims to ensure fair competition and consumer choice in the digital marketplace.
Apple’s CTF is likely in violation of several DMA clauses by:
• Imposing financial disincentives for using third-party services.
• Restricting developers’ ability to freely promote and communicate offers.
• Forcing developers to use Apple’s services through indirect fees.
• Limiting free interoperability and access to core platform services.
• Violating FRAND principles by discriminating against developers using alternative platforms.
The CTF (Commission Transfer Fee) introduced by Apple is a clear violation of the DMA, specifically Articles 5 and 6. It imposes undue financial burdens on developers and third-party services, restricts free and fair access to core platform services, and perpetuates Apple’s market dominance.
Point to me where in the DMA was Apple forced to add code that allows other stores?
The only difference between my iPhone before DMA and afterwards is the need of a enterprise/developer certificate to install alternative AppStores. ( allowing me to certificate whatever app i want to install on device)
Apple just opted with the most complicated and expensive solution
Considering that @wbeasleylives in Australia, he couldn’t have missed that.
To be fair though, wbeasley only said it went to court - not that he was convicted.
but end of the day, people sue over even six words they dont like.
we also defamation cases with high profile soldiers who didnt win and ruined their reputations in the process because of the evidence presented the public didnt know about beforehand.
the point is passing opinions online can get you in trouble.
some people make rather bold claims like they are facts just because this in a forum.
you can still be held accountable for loose words. even here.
