←back to thread

Apple just kicked Fortnite off the App Store

(www.theverge.com)
1704 points ardit33 | 3 comments | 13 Aug 20 19:03 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
andreasley ◴[13 Aug 20 20:37 UTC] No.24148645[source]▶
Epic Games has filed a lawsuit [1] and published a Fortnite-themed parody of Apple's "1984" [2] to get some publicity for it.

[1] https://cdn2.unrealengine.com/apple-complaint-734589783.pdf

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euiSHuaw6Q4

replies(8): >>24148908 #>>24149547 #>>24149588 #>>24150052 #>>24150240 #>>24152704 #>>24152926 #>>24155057 #
coldcode ◴[13 Aug 20 20:51 UTC] No.24148908[source]▶
They will lose as the TOS clearly indicates the rules and Epic agreed to them. This is basic contract law. Apple has a massive team of experienced lawyers.
replies(4): >>24148955 #>>24148988 #>>24148992 #>>24150072 #
abnry ◴[13 Aug 20 20:57 UTC] No.24148992[source]▶
I'm guessing the crux of the argument will be that the ToS are illegal in this respect?
replies(1): >>24149188 #
coldcode ◴[13 Aug 20 21:07 UTC] No.24149188[source]▶
It is likely extremely difficult to win such a suit based on challenging the terms of an agreement that you agreed to repeatedly. Every single change to the TOS for a developer account requires acceptance. I doubt there is any part of this agreement that Apple did not write with this exact circumstance in mind. No matter what Epic challenges based on this argument in the end they will give in and look like fools. Maybe if they are lucky Apple will lower the % by a little. This is not cutting edge law here.
replies(3): >>24149450 #>>24149526 #>>24150034 #
1. atavisticapple ◴[13 Aug 20 21:23 UTC] No.24149450{3}[source]▶
I'm not sure why you feel qualified to comment on the legal aspects on this case based on just a primitive understanding of offer and acceptance (which isn't the point of contention here). You can't have an enforceable contractual term that is illegal, even if both parties have agreed to it. The legal issue is whether Apple's ToS contravenes some aspect of competition law.
replies(2): >>24149726 #>>24156584 #
2. onemiketwelve ◴[13 Aug 20 21:40 UTC] No.24149726[source]▶
Maybe he's both a programmer and practices contract law on the side
3. nodamage ◴[14 Aug 20 11:38 UTC] No.24156584[source]▶
IANAL but my understanding of antitrust cases is that voluntary consent to a EULA is indeed a relevant factor in determining market power for antitrust claims. See the discussion in Blizzard Entertainment Inc. v. Ceiling Fan Software LLC:

> Blizzard raises this argument in its motion, contending that Defendants cannot establish antitrust claims based on its users' voluntary consent to the EULA and TOU. (Mot. Br. 22–23.) Although Blizzard does not argue this point in the market power analysis, the Court finds that this discussion is applicable to whether the market power requirement is established. Blizzard cites Newcal, Queen City Pizza, Inc. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 124 F.3d 430, 441 (3d Cir.1997), and Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 586 F.Supp.2d 1190, 1201 (N.D.Cal.2008), to show that Defendants cannot base its claims on the aftermarket restrictions. ( See Opp'n Br. 17.) These cases explain that the law prohibits an antitrust claimant from asserting an antitrust claim “resting on market power that arises solely from contractual rights that customers knowingly and voluntarily gave to the defendant” when they purchased the initial tying product.

https://casetext.com/case/blizzard-entmt-inc-v-ceiling-fan-s...