According to Apple, that current contact was granted by accident (in that it was automatically approved by the system without peer oversight). So it’s not so much that Apple is revoking Epic’s current contract as much as it should never have been approved in the first place.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
EU Probes Apple's Decision to Shut Down Epic's Developer Account
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
According to Apple, that current contact was granted by accident (in that it was automatically approved by the system without peer oversight). So it’s not so much that Apple is revoking Epic’s current contract as much as it should never have been approved in the first place.
Apple: "If not properly managed, alternative distribution poses increased privacy, safety, and security risks for users and developers. This includes risks from installing software from unknown developers that are not subject to the Apple Developer Program requirements"
Also Apple: Unknowingly approves developer accounts for the company (Epic) that most notoriously and egregiously broke their rules - through an automated system.
You stand behind the never-ending madness brought about by Apple's, with its stubborn refusal to just comply.
Well, you won’t know where the line really is until you cross it.
And what does compliance even mean in this regard, when the DMA is so ambiguously worded? There are so many things Apple could do in order to comply with the DMA, each with its own unique set of outcomes. Who is to say what the “right” interpretation ought to be?
For example, many people assumed the DMA to mean that sideloading would be allowed and users would be able to freely install apps from the web. Instead, Apple is opting to interpret it to mean third party app stores, and they still apparently control what apps are allowed and which aren’t (to a degree).
Even apps installed this way can be liable for a core technology fee that seems to defeat the whole point. Is this legal or not? Again, we don’t seem to really know (yet).
What’s the protocol for handling errant developers? Just turn a blind eye? Is Apple supposed to file a complaint with the E.U. and wait for them to arrive at a decision?
Likewise, how much leeway are people normally residing in the E.U. supposed to have when they exit the region? Indefinitely? Again, unclear.
There seems to be a lot of grey areas for a contactual piece of legislation that is supposed to be watertight, so until we get more clarity, Apple is just going to keep testing the waters to see what they can (and cannot) get away with.
Last edited:
Exactly. And that's why there seems to be no end to the madness.
They could have gone with the model Alphabet takes on Android: Allow sideloading, allow third-party app stores without a "Core Technology Fee" - yet they didn't.
Compliance (on the issue of app distribution/installation) is only hard and if you choose to narrow down and fight every little concession you'd have to make the way Apple does.
Given this is all about easily changeable - yet sometimes complex - software and that the DMA is only narrow/specific in scope (they're just regulating gatekeeper's behaviours and terms in very specific instances, i.e. Core Platform Services), it should have been clear long ago that a company may try to find loopholes in it - and that the law may need to be extended and/or interpreted. Basically unavoidable, unless they would have gone for much broader and far- (over-) reaching regulation.
Google makes a lot less money on their App Store, and infamously went so far as to bribe developers so they wouldn't support third party app stores. Was it fair that they allowed Spotify (and only Spotify) to sidestep their 30% cut? It's hard to look at the current android model and go "yeah, Apple should totally just copy that ad-verbatim".
What's also clear (to me at least) is that Apple has absolutely zero intention of giving up their 30% cut, and this will continue to influence all their decisions moving forward. I admit I may have been a tad overenthusiastic over what I believed Apple could get away with, but I still believe this is just the start of a lot of back and forth between Apple and the EU.
Do we know if the EU has issued any statement on the state of the CTF yet? That's the next most controversial aspect of Apple's proposal for the DMA, I believe, not least because it creates a very strong disincentive for developers of free apps to park their apps with third party app stores, yet nothing in the DMA suggests that Apple is disallowed from monetising their IP. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Some people may believe that but that's not the argument from those of us who either understand and/or work within the legal system (in the US or otherwise).
A court judgement (even one in a different jurisdiction) does have relevance beyond stare decisis (binding precedent) because it's a formal adjudication that found Epic broke a contract with Apple and thereby Apple is reasonable in its concern that Epic is prone to breaking future agreements with them and compromising their system. The argument is "Apple has been found by a court of law to be within its rights to terminate a contract with Epic" rather than "A US court found Epic violated a contract with Apple therefore the EU must conclude that, as well." Now, there are other principles at play, such as, respecting the finding of facts by an alternate fact finding body and considering the totality of the circumstances to form a holistic opinion. The US Supreme Court, by policy and history, does not grant precedent to the opinion of other courts--foreign or domestic. Federal districts and state courts are also not beholden to decisions from other states' courts. They still consider what the rest of the world is doing while deliberating--no on exists in a vacuum--and sometimes those other decisions have import on the Justices decisions'.
It's worth nothing that even the people responding to this don't have sufficient understanding of EU law themselves since the point is mooted by the fact EU courts don't subscribe to the doctrine of stare decisis anyway...but I digress.
Not fair to other streaming services. But certainly pro-consumer for Spotify consumers - or beneficial for Spotify themselves.
Totally agree - I wrote the same some months ago on this forum. This is just the beginning. It may take quite a while (months if not years) until the dust of market investigations and possibly court decisions settles.
I've been wondering myself how the EU would (legally) challenge it.
That said, keeping around their old, unchanged business terms and even steer developers of said apps to them is quite the audacious move by Apple - which may come to bite them.
Apple's lawyers wrote this though:
"the U.S. judgment expressly provides that "apple has the contractual to terminat its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games0 wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates and/or entities under Epic Games' control at any time and at Apple's sole discretion""
There's a difference between reasonable concern justifying a termination - and having sole discretion to terminate at any time.
Impossible, different legal jurisdiction. EU can’t enforce a U.S. ruling
It isn’t, Apple changed their mind after Eau asked them what they are doing
Nope, also legally impossible.
The DMA=\= DSA. This was a breach of the DSA and possible the DMA.
Apple have shown they have zero idea what they’re doing. Just like their complaints of the Spotify fine with the classic: ” but they didn’t show harm to consumers” when it’s not even relevant to EU anti trust laws
Minority report. Punishment before the crime is committed. We truly live in an age of wonder.
By accident? Aince Gwen is that ever fly in court between B2B dealings, and did Phil Schiller also accidentally talk with Epic for a month?
So what is the argument then?: "Apple has been found by a foreign public opinion club
The argument posits that Apple’s contractual termination rights, as adjudicated by a non-EU court, do not equate to a carte blanche to contravene EU contract regulations. The divergent legal frameworks of the EU and US, particularly regarding contract law, render it non-obvious whether Epic’s actions constituted a legal breach under EU jurisprudence. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) operates independently of foreign judicial practices, given the incompatibility of common law with EU legal principles.
The crux of the matter rests on the doctrine of good faith, which in EU law, permeates all contractual phases, influencing negotiation, execution, and enforcement. Conversely, US law confines good faith to the execution of contractual duties, seldom employing it for expansive contractual interpretation. This distinction underscores the disparate legal doctrines and ideologies that shape contract law within each jurisdiction. The EU’s civil law framework facilitates a dynamic invocation of good faith to promote contractual justice and parity, whereas the US’s common law system prioritizes the literal interpretation of contract terms and the original contractual intent. These fundamental disparities exemplify the unique legal traditions that inform contract law across these jurisdictions.
Epic has been found via a court of law to have broken a contract with Apple. Therefore, the EU court should recognize Apple's decision that they don't want to do business with them anymore (as the US courts have authorized them to conclude) to be based upon a set of facts and not mere speculation.
Again, the rest of what you posted is irrelevant--the argument has nothing to do with the EU courts adhering to any foreign judgements as precedent. That's a red-herring you continue to construct. The argument is whether Apple is practicing good faith when it dissolved it's contract with Epic and, based on the fact a legitimate court said they could, they are clearly not acting in bad faith when following the US court's directive.
The concept of whether a court decision is valid is different from whether that decision sets precedent for the current court. The EU will recognize the US court decision as valid without acknowledging it creates an impetus for the EU court to decide the same way. At the same time, it must consider how Apple, especially as a US held company, operates its business within the confines of both legal systems, which makes the US decision relevant (albeit non-binding) to the EU's decisions.
What do you think the difference is between those two statements or why do you think the two are not mutually linked? "Sole discretion" merely means they can make a decision without advice or permission from another entity and doesn't have any bearing on why they might make that decision. They have a reasonable concern so they terminated the contract within their own discretion. They don't need the courts to authorize that decision nor do they need Epic to agree with their decision, which is current US law that the US court reaffirmed for both parties. If the EU court wants to rule current European law mandates Apple can't remove someone's credentials to develop software for their platform without court approval that's a different, and frankly dangerous, argument.
More importantly, the same source of the quote you provided quotes Epic spokespersons as testifying that they intentionally broke the contract to make a point and create a situation for Apple to sustain financial losses. Those statements are now "facts" that can be used to cross Epic employees in the EU trials. Again, the EU doesn't have to reach the same conclusion as the US court but the things that happened within the US trial will be validated evidence in any other legal venue unless someone argues the US court system is illegitimate in and of itself.
Not only did Epic already break the contract with Apple, they testified they entered the contract purposefully in order to then break it so they could sue them. So unless you think preventing a convicted pedophile who starts going to school for a teaching degree explicitly so they can be around children to victimize is "minority report" stuff your statement doesn't make any sense. Or if that example is too incendiary for you, a burglar who starts a safe or moving business so they can case people's houses. Whatever example you want to use, Epic testified that they forged a contractual relationship with Apple even though they had no intention of following the contract simply so they could then harm Apple and be harmed by Apple so they could then sue them. This is not a situation where Apple needs to wonder whether Epic would do such a thing--Epic testified under oath that they did it.
Last edited:
This is an interesting misunderstanding,it doesn’t matter if apple is a U.S. based company or a Korean based company, when they are within EU to conduct business they have the legal obligation to follow EU rules. And they aren’t acting in good faith for two reasons. Especially when the subsidiaries they deal with are within EU.
1: failure to notify the party within reasonable time before terminating the contract
2: failure to respect the legal obligations in EU.
No, you can’t terminate a contract without legal cause related to the contract at hand, aka you don’t have sole discretion to end a contract without a legally justified reason. And generally you can’t end a contract without notifying them within 30days. However, the bar for a breach of contract to be considered fundamental is often set high, and wrongful termination of the contract, and the following non-performance, is in many cases in turn considered a fundamental breach of contract by the terminating party.
Hers the big issue, if the contract is illegal then the act of breaking said contract isn’t a breach of contract because it’s not valid.
Contract law is heavily regulated in EU so you don’t play games with that.
courts may consider the contract void if the illegality is confirmed. This means that the contract would be treated as if it never existed, and typically, neither party would be able to enforce its terms.
If a company breaks a clause it believes to be illegal and is subsequently sued, the court will determine the legality of the clause. If the court finds the clause to be illegal, the clause would typically be void, and the company may not be held liable for breaching it.
Indeed epic has been found via a court to have broken US law. Epic have not been found to have broken EU law. You keep taping about a legitimate court have found x, while ignoring that it’s not recognized as a legitimate court by EU, it’s much more complicated here.
Apple must irrespective of their own opinions or domestic legal issues follow 5 specific legal principles.
- P2B (platform 2 business)
Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services - DSA (the digital service act) Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act)
- DMA(Digital markets Act) Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828
- EU contract and commercial laws.
- Swedish Contract law because it’s a Swedish registered subsidiary
The concept of a ‘reasonable notice period’ is not strictly defined but often is no shorter than 30 days unless there’s a breach of contract
There are mandatory requirements in the Commercial Agents Act and the Commissioned Agents Act restricting a supplier’s right to terminate a distribution agreement. Agreements that have not been entered for a certain period may be terminated by the supplier after the following notice periods: one month during the first year…
The US court system is recognized as a legitimate court system in the EU--I'm not sure why you'd argue otherwise.
That is, as I stated earlier, a separate issue from whether the EU is beholden to its opinions, which it is not.
Regardless, Apple has already reinstated Epic's developer license and the EU court has not fined or otherwise sanctioned Apple so it would appear my opinion that the EU court would not sanction them was correct.
The U.S. court is recognized as a legitimate court system in the U.S. but not inside the EU.
I’m not arguing if they are beholden, I’m arguing it’s not relevant because of the legal systems are to different in regards to this issue with little to no overlap.
It would be as relevant as looking at a sharia court in Kongo and draw some legal support/ interpretation for some other eu court case.
Apple reinstated the account within a day, on what planet could a court manage to find them guilty, sanction them and fine them in less than a day? Especially when it’s the commission that does that, the court only arbitrates if it’s appealed To EUCJ to make sure the commission didn’t get it wrong.
Essentially your opinion wasn’t correct. We don’t even know if the investigation was dropped or if Apple backed down because of legal pressure
You are incorrect. The US court system is regarded as a legitimate court system within the EU. You continually conflate "legitimate" with meaning the EU court must adhere to the same decisions. The two concepts are not the same thing.
I'm not sure why believe the EU would consider the US court system to be illegitimate. The EU court system may decide not to agree with a US court's decision but the decision is still regarded as a legitimate court decision derived after legitimate due process. You can contrast this with a decision coming from a court system that is generally regarded as illegitimate by Western-democratic courts, such as, a North Korean or Russian court decision wherein the EU courts wouldn't even entertain those processes as following general western tenants like due process, for example.
When you find evidence of the EU sanctioning Apple for their behavior you can come back and say I was incorrect. Until then, my opinion as written before that they would not be sanctioned and the apparent evidence of them currently unsanctioned means my opinion was and continues to be correct.
Your prediction is currently just that a prediction that can ether be true or false, and currently it’s just in limbo indefinitely.
I think we are having some disconnect in what I’m saying in regards to the U.S. legal system. I haven’t ever said anything about adhering to it. It’s legitimate in the same way a state is legitimate.
Eu won’t decide anything in regards to the U.S. court, in fact I have never heard them ever taking a single U.S. courts opinion in consideration. The only thing of value would be the evidence provided for the prosecutor. The opinion of any U.S. judge doesn’t have any credibility, they are as credible as armchair lawyers, because they aren’t educated in any relevant fields of continental civil/roman/german law
Eu don’t have any reason to entertain anything from the U.S. legal process when we don’t work from the same legal foundation and framework.
We don’t even work on the same understanding of what anti trust means.
The only thing I want Apple to control is the App Store frankly
I want them to be able to protect paid apps there from piracy since I think that is the main thing that’s hurt android. Other than that sideloading has made android the stronger and freer platform that and opensource nature. If you hate Google you can use degoogled android and it’s a beautiful thing. Every time I try it, the compromises are less and less. Android is as easy to use as iOS overall but if an app is crashing or if you’re having problems android is significantly easier to figure out what’s wrong and solve it.
Also you don’t lose access to apps as easily bc Google decides to squash an app there is recourse. Google controls its platform, you control your phone. It’s how the world is supposed to work.