Following Apple's decision to pull Fortnite from its Apple Store, Epic Games announced that it will take legal action. Epic Games shared the news via the official Fortnite Twitter account:

Epic Games has filed legal papers in response to Apple, read more here: https://t.co/c4sgvxQUvb

— Fortnite (@FortniteGame) August 13, 2020

​

“Epic brings this suit to end Apple’s unfair and anti-competitive actions that Apple undertakes to unlawfully maintain its monopoly in two distinct, multibillion dollar markets: (i) the iOS App Distribution Market, and (ii) the iOS In-App Payment Processing Market(each as defined below),” the lawsuit reads. “Epic is not seeking monetary compensation from this Court for the injuries it has suffered. Nor is Epic seeking favorable treatment for itself, a single company. Instead, Epic is seeking injunctive relief to allow fair competition in these two key markets that directly affect hundreds of millions of consumers and tens of thousands, if not more, of third-party app developers.”

You can read the complaint in its entirety in the source link below.

SOURCE

UPDATE:

In response to Fortnite being taken down from the Google Play Store as well, Epic Games filed a lawsuit against against Google for antitrust violation.

SOURCE

 

[VartioArtel]

As for the final paragraph, breaking a TOS doesn't equate to breaking AntiTrust. Far from it in fact. Sometimes a TOS and EULA has clauses in it that in fact are illegal, but nobody bothers to challenge it. If people read the EULAs when they installed Epic or Origin on their PCs, they'd notice a few clauses that can easily be interpreted as "All your PC belongs to Us." That interpretation can't be enforced only because it would cause a serious legal headache for all parties involved. If someone breaks a company's TOS or EULA, then yes the company has the right to remove your license or access to their services, but that doesn't mean that someone is trying to break AntiTrust Laws. In this case they aren't trying to take away competition, they are trying to entice it, to expand upon it. Competition keeps prices from being arbitrarily inflated above what they are now, otherwise any company, Apple, Google, Valve, Epic, EA, Microsoft, Sony, or Nintendo could charge 100 times more than they do now if they didn't have anyone to compete with, and nobody would have any choice in the matter.

True on all fronts. I suppose that is a misstep on my part. However:

In this case they aren't trying to take away competition, they are trying to entice it, to expand upon it.

I disagree here. It is my expectation this is a setup for a Huawei or similar chinese-affiliated platform that will be deemed the "Epic Store", in an attempt to form an 'innocent monopoly". And they're trying to use this whole situation to gaslight their fans in preparation for this CCP-aligned store so when they join, they are giving away their money to the CCP with a smile.

Why else would they host that 1984tnite video? The timing implies the whole situation was intentional. The attempt to throw the parallels to 1984 (which the average kid don't even know, but that they're using on kids is in itself terrifying) is also intentional. They're attempting to pull a hella stunt here to destroy the competition in some manner. How, I am not aware of yet. But getting the people on their side seems a given.

 

[GbaNober]

It's a Bloody war for sure

 

[Dimensional]

I disagree here. It is my expectation this is a setup for a Huawei or similar chinese-affiliated platform that will be deemed the "Epic Store", in an attempt to form an 'innocent monopoly". And they're trying to use this whole situation to gaslight their fans in preparation for this CCP-aligned store so when they join, they are giving away their money to the CCP with a smile.

Why else would they host that 1984tnite video? The timing implies the whole situation was intentional. The attempt to throw the parallels to 1984 (which the average kid don't even know, but that they're using on kids is in itself terrifying) is also intentional. They're attempting to pull a hella stunt here to destroy the competition in some manner. How, I am not aware of yet. But getting the people on their side seems a given.

I'd say there's a stretch in the logic there. Agreed it's super apparent that this was intentional, but again I don't see how this is trying to get rid of competition. I agree that being forced into the Apple TOS does prevent them from becoming a monopoly, but it's a big stretch to say they are trying to shut down one monopoly so they replace it with one they don't have, and not to mention they aren't trying to force Apple to get rid of the Apple App Store or force Google to get rid of the Play Store.

 

[VartioArtel]

I'd say there's a stretch in the logic there. Agreed it's super apparent that this was intentional, but again I don't see how this is trying to get rid of competition. I agree that being forced into the Apple TOS does prevent them from becoming a monopoly, but it's a big stretch to say they are trying to shut down one monopoly so they replace it with one they don't have, and not to mention they aren't trying to force Apple to get rid of the Apple App Store or force Google to get rid of the Play Store.

You claim that there's a monopoly where, blatantly, there isn't. As stated earlier: Nothing Apple does constitutes a monopoly except for MAYBE refusing the right to repair. We've established that the Mobile Gaming Market has competition, and they do nothing to stifle away from the competition, if anything their actions SUPPORT the competition by putting such a huge 'tax' on the funds purchased.

Also again there's the presence of "Innocent" Monopolies. A monopoly that isn't illegal formed simply by having such a huge userbase just by the quality and/or price of their product, limited quality of a product, etc. This is exactly what I expect Tencent/Epic to be aiming for. They plan to shame the competition, make people believe they're corrupt, greed(ier than them), etc etc. They want to turn people against the current status quo and worship them. Then they will form an 'innocent monopoly' using their own service (or platform, if they make an Epic Games Store for mobile) that will cut out that %age fee to the likes of Apple/Google. If they go with the mobile EGS, they will then offer a platform that doesn't take as large a cut like they attempt(ed) to do with the PC EGS did to combat Steam. This will attempt to form an 'Innocent Monopoly'.

Remember what I said: "Fascists (which Communism is *extremely* similar to) are fond of convincing you they're on your side, so when they win, you're eating out of the palm of their hand".

You have to remember that you're dealing with businessmen. They're usually thinking a few steps ahead on profits in the long term. Having a video prepared in advance to sway the people, namely using 1984 as a basis, is a clear sign of this. They are bringing to action these court cases before they even start. They *want* this to involve the community in some way.

 

[Dimensional]

You claim that there's a monopoly where, blatantly, there isn't. As stated earlier: Nothing Apple does constitutes a monopoly except for MAYBE refusing the right to repair. We've established that the Mobile Gaming Market has competition, and they do nothing to stifle away from the competition, if anything their actions SUPPORT the competition by putting such a huge 'tax' on the funds purchased.

This statement is fair and valid. I admit I didn't consider that part of the argument.

Also again there's the presence of "Innocent" Monopolies. A monopoly that isn't illegal formed simply by having such a huge userbase just by the quality and/or price of their product, limited quality of a product, etc. This is exactly what I expect Tencent/Epic to be aiming for. They plan to shame the competition, make people believe they're corrupt, greed(ier than them), etc etc. They want to turn people against the current status quo and worship them. Then they will form an 'innocent monopoly' using their own service (or platform, if they make an Epic Games Store for mobile) that will cut out that %age fee to the likes of Apple/Google. If they go with the mobile EGS, they will then offer a platform that doesn't take as large a cut like they attempt(ed) to do with the PC EGS did to combat Steam. This will attempt to form an 'Innocent Monopoly'.

This is actually a slipper slope argument. Just because they will try to entice people to go to their store front on the promise of more profit doesn't mean everyone will do that. We've already seen that on the PC Platform with a few Indie Developers. Who's to say the same won't be true on Mobile, that people won't go to EGS? Heck, a TOS amendment on Apple and Google could say that they can't sell games directly on their mobile platform, only let them handle purchases more directly without paying a surcharge for processing by Apple/Google. Though interestingly enough I believe Square Enix's FF Launcher does that, but has to use Apple/Google as a payment middleman. EGS could be barred from selling games directly, but not from handling in-game transactions, which from the initial argument is what Epic wanted. Anything more is purely speculation.

Remember what I said: "Fascists (which Communism is *extremely* similar to) are fond of convincing you they're on your side, so when they win, you're eating out of the palm of their hand".

You have to remember that you're dealing with businessmen. They're usually thinking a few steps ahead on profits in the long term. Having a video prepared in advance to sway the people, namely using 1984 as a basis, is a clear sign of this. They are bringing to action these court cases before they even start. They *want* this to involve the community in some way.

I'm familiar with that, and I agree. They are people who claim to be fighting for others when they're really only in it for themselves. But then one could argue that's already happening with practically every company, claiming to be the good guys and everyone else is bad, and will try to get public opinion swayed in their favor. It's done with politics too. This is all one Big Ol' Cluster F*** where no matter what side is taken, the public is actually losing. The question is how badly do we want to lose, and how good are we at figuring out how?

 

[VartioArtel]

This statement is fair and valid. I admit I didn't consider that part of the argument.

Always good to have a good discussion where both sides listen.

This is actually a slipper slope argument. Just because they will try to entice people to go to their store front on the promise of more profit doesn't mean everyone will do that. We've already seen that on the PC Platform with a few Indie Developers. Who's to say the same won't be true on Mobile, that people won't go to EGS? Heck, a TOS amendment on Apple and Google could say that they can't sell games directly on their mobile platform, only let them handle purchases more directly without paying a surcharge for processing by Apple/Google. Though interestingly enough I believe Square Enix's FF Launcher does that, but has to use Apple/Google as a payment middleman. EGS could be barred from selling games directly, but not handling in-game transactions, which from the initial argument is what Epic wanted. Anything more is purely speculation.

Oh I agree it's a Slippery Slope argument. But it don't change it's likely what they're aiming for. Afterall look how aggressively they're trying to pull from steam by pushing so many exclusivity deals and a history of "Exclusive with us, or don't get on our platform at all".

I'm familiar with that, and I agree. They are people who claim to be fighting for others when they're really only in it for themselves. But then one could argue that's already happening with practically every company, claiming to be the good guys and everyone else is bad, and will try to get public opinion swayed in their favor. It's done with politics too. This is all one Big Ol' Cluster F*** where no matter what side is taken, the public is actually losing. The question is how badly do we want to lose, and how good are we at figuring out how?

Again agreed. No matter how this goes we're screwed. Personally I feel the Mobile Market in its entirety is a mistake.

I've always been of the opinion capitalism is a mistake. There's nothing wrong with making a profit, but that there needs to be tighter taxing/rules on them so that they can't hoard as much money or improper distribution of money, improper management of staff, etc. There's only so much money combined in the world, yet somehow companies expect perpetually expanding profits. I'm tired of hearing of good developers/studios cut off but the CEO and his inner circle getting (or nearly getting) massive pay raises...

 

[KingVamp]

Isn't the best scenario is that they win then it backfires, and they are also investigated for antitrust?

 

[Dimensional]

I've always been of the opinion capitalism is a mistake. There's nothing wrong with making a profit, but that there needs to be tighter taxing/rules on them so that they can't hoard as much money or improper distribution of money, improper management of staff, etc. There's only so much money combined in the world, yet somehow companies expect perpetually expanding profits. I'm tired of hearing of good developers/studios cut off but the CEO and his inner circle getting (or nearly getting) massive pay raises...

I would have to disagree that capitalism is a mistake. On it's own, in it's purist ideal, it's innovative. It's not the fault of the idea, but the fault of how people abuse it for their own unending selfishness. Building an empire so you can have dominion over everything the sun shines on is selfish, but building an empire for the people to thrive and flourish together, to be able to grow and build, is not. Capitalism is a physical drive that without utter greed and selfishness would work pretty well. Wanting to make money so you can build things to help others isn't bad, but wanting to charge 5 times as much as it costs to make something is when that money isn't used to build up something else. And more taxing might get in the way of that, however better defined rules wouldn't. We know how bad things can get when an industry refuses to regulate itself (EA's Surprise Mechanics ring any bells?).

 

[ccfman2004]

All in-app purchases whether it's from Apple, Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, Android must go through them and they all take a cut so why is Apple and Google being singled out here? With iOS it's extremely difficult to get malware installed as everything goes through Apple first. The few malware apps that didn't get detected at first were quickly removed. With Google allowing out-of-store installs you run the risk of installing malware. I tried Android once and went back to iOS as I found it much faster on a less powerful device than Android.

Epic Games knew full well they were violating an agreement they accepted. Fortnite is on basically every platform and they happily pay Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony for each in-app purchase yet oppose Apple and Google for doing the same.

 

[Dimensional]

Isn't the best scenario is that they win then it backfires, and they are also investigated for antitrust?

That would be ironic and something fun to watch, though obviously have to hope everyone learns an important lesson in the end.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

All in-app purchases whether it's from Apple, Xbox, Playstation, Nintendo, Android must go through them and they all take a cut so why is Apple and Google being singled out here? With iOS it's extremely difficult to get malware installed as everything goes through Apple first. The few malware apps that didn't get detected at first were quickly removed. With Google allowing out-of-store installs you run the risk of installing malware. I tried Android once and went back to iOS as I found it much faster on a less powerful device than Android.

Epic Games knew full well they were violating an agreement they accepted. Fortnite is on basically every platform and they happily pay Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony for each in-app purchase yet oppose Apple and Google for doing the same.

Because they are the only big players in the Mobile Market, with Windows Phone and Blackberry being rarely heard of these days. However it could easily be seen that this would also affect consoles.

 

[VartioArtel]

I would have to disagree that capitalism is a mistake. On it's own, in it's purist ideal, it's innovative. It's not the fault of the idea, but the fault of how people abuse it for their own unending selfishness. Building an empire so you can have dominion over everything the sun shines on is selfish, but building an empire for the people to thrive and flourish together, to be able to grow and build, is not. Capitalism is a physical drive that without utter greed and selfishness would work pretty well. Wanting to make money so you can build things to help others isn't bad, but wanting to charge 5 times as much as it costs to make something is when that money isn't used to build up something else. And more taxing might get in the way of that, however better defined rules wouldn't. We know how bad things can get when an industry refuses to regulate itself (EA's Surprise Mechanics ring any bells?).

You realize you gave the same exact argument's given for communism, right?

"In it's purest ideal, it's innovative. It's not the fault of the idea, but the fault of how people abuse it for their own unending selfishness".

Literally the arguments given to why communism isn't bad. Doesn't mean it's the *right* way. When something is that easy to abuse, then by practice it's counterproductive and not that good. We can strive for an ideal, but the ideal itself is not practical due to abuseability as it presumes too much in faithful and honest utilization of the ideal. But humans don't work that way.

I understand your point otherwise, but it don't change that you're expecting the best in people. I'm a realist, and Capitalism, while a lofty ideal, is not a practical one due to its abuseability.

 

[Dimensional]

You realize you gave the same exact argument's given for communism, right?

"In it's purest ideal, it's innovative. It's not the fault of the idea, but the fault of how people abuse it for their own unending selfishness".

Literally the arguments given to why communism isn't bad. Doesn't mean it's the *right* way. When something is that easy to abuse, then by practice it's counterproductive and not that good. We can strive for an ideal, but the ideal itself is not practical due to abuseability as it presumes too much in faithful and honest utilization of the ideal. But humans don't work that way.

I understand your point otherwise, but it don't change that you're expecting the best in people. I'm a realist, and Capitalism, while a lofty ideal, is not a practical one due to its abuseability.

We are completely on the same page about that. It describes really any and all forms of economic and political/government structures. The ideal is pure, but is impractical due to the corruption of the people enacting it. Now we should probably halt these discussions as we have segways far away from the original topic about Epic vs Apple. Agreed?

 

[VartioArtel]

We are completely on the same page about that. It describes really any and all forms of economic and political/government structures. The ideal is pure, but is impractical due to the corruption of the people enacting it. Now we should probably halt these discussions as we have segways far away from the original topic about Epic vs Apple. Agreed?

Edit in: Well more than anything, it's used almost worldwide about Communism, more so than most other governments. This is because Communism lacks the checks and balances other governments have.

Agreed.

 

[Shape]

Here's my honest thoughts on this case excluding what I posted earlier:

A company is allowed to NOT host their IP on an apple device. Apple is likewise allowed to require a 'hosting fee', disgusting as it is.

The problem is the people buying into EITHER of their crap.

There is no 'anti-trust' with what Apple's doing. They are not stopping companies from hosting on an Android Phone, they are not stopping them from hosting on Windows, etc, in this case. Epic chose to produce a copy of their game for Apple. They agreed to Apple's terms and services.

Realistically, regardless how scummy Apple is, they are legally within their rights. They set the rules, and now Epic don't want to play by them.

This is not to say Epic's not being scummy either. They are expecting special treatment. They got denied that special treatment and got punished as per the TOS.

Ultimately: I view this as an open-shut case in Apple's favor.

If people want Apple to lose, then do the world a frickin' favor and stop buying their phones and their computers, accessories, dongles, dingles, and snorkles.

Begging Apple to lose this case would overthrow the established laws of this country as to contract laws (in this case, the ToS for using the Apple Store platform) and be an exercise in just turning this country inside out more than it's already becoming were apple to lose. The only sane solution will be Apples winning. As I said last line: the only way apple loses, is if people stop buying Apple services/items and also stops using Apple's "Official Repair services".

Nothing Apple has done is explicitly illegal. Scummy yes, but scummy don't really have punishments unless they're anti-competitive, anti-consumer to extremes, etc. Anti-Right-to-Repair is an extreme case of anti-consumer as it's also anti-competitive, for example. That is something Apple is VERY LIKELY to lose on, ideally. But until the law changes, nothing they do is explicitly illegal that we know of.

While I generally agree with you, apple's 30% cut is excessive for their company's size. There are several ways this can shake out in Epic's favor thag DO NOT upend our country's laws. In fact, when a contract is found to be 1. Illegal or 2. Without proper intent, a court can ammend the terms of that contract.

However, I still generally agree with you here. I think that any positive outcome for epic would entail... Well first a mud slinging competition, and then a settlement to universally drop apples cuts by 3 to 8 percent. Realistically, though, this case probably won't even see a court.

Additionally, it's probably just PR tactics to get epic more exposure. Even bad publicity is publicity and the fees for a case like this (ESP. If you have no intention of winning and damages are NOT involved) is going to be exponentially less than an ad campaign.

 

[yoyoyo69]

This should be interesting, it's not David vs goliath, it's goliath vs goliath. Both have very deep pockets and can litigate this with the most expensive lawyers money can buy.

I hope epic win as it would set a precedent and ultimately help the smallest developers get a bigger piece of the pie

Epic are no small indie dev, but Apple dwarf them .

I'm not too much against Epic, they have done some bad things, but Apple a re the typical evil conglomerate, it's like they aim to fulfil the typical stereotype.

 

[VartioArtel]

While I generally agree with you, apple's 30% cut is excessive for their company's size. There are several ways this can shake out in Epic's favor thag DO NOT upend our country's laws. In fact, when a contract is found to be 1. Illegal or 2. Without proper intent, a court can ammend the terms of that contract.

However, I still generally agree with you here. I think that any positive outcome for epic would entail... Well first a mud slinging competition, and then a settlement to universally drop apples cuts by 3 to 8 percent. Realistically, though, this case probably won't even see a court.

Additionally, it's probably just PR tactics to get epic more exposure. Even bad publicity is publicity and the fees for a case like this (ESP. If you have no intention of winning and damages are NOT involved) is going to be exponentially less than an ad campaign.

I agree 30% is excessive, but again, it's sadly not illegal. That one word is what matters here. They're going to try to claim anti-trust or the sort, but there's absolutely no grounds. If Google+Apple knows what they're doing, they will fight this for every penny Epic's worth and then some. They can sue for the attorney's fees easily considering how frivilous this case is.

I am not saying Apple is moral, even now. I am saying in this case, the way to beat them would be to ostracize them. To legally break off from the company, NOT sue them like a child, and then to build up your own platform/etc legally and win without cheap tactics. You need to offer non-Apple Phone Apps/Games that are stellar enough that Apple people choose intentionally to abandon Apple phones just due to the quality/etc.

The game companies themselves need to check their greed too, focus on moral choices like denying Apple their greed.

But that's the problem: greed. People will keep going to apple because it has a userbase. Until companies stop going to apple, until people move off Apple, you really can't stop them because for now they're too big to fail. They have most of the legal loopholes covered so you can't sue them without intense difficulty and very specific niches anyhow. At most, you can introduce/change laws, but it ultimately won't matter. They'll find new loopholes that are entirely within the laws. The only real solution is to stop using apple.

 

[The Real Jdbye]

I don't think they are going to get anywhere suing Google for antitrust. They may not allow 3rd party app stores to be hosted on Google Play but they don't disallow people installing 3rd party app stores on their devices, similarly you may not be able to run 3rd party in app purchases via a Play Store app but no one is stopping you from running 3rd party purchases via a website rather than directly in the app, or hosting the app on a separate website or app store where you don't have those restrictions. It's just about disallowing things they don't agree with on their own service, which they are in their full right to do as a service is a privilege and not a right - they are not trying to control what you can and can't do on your device like Apple are.

In the end, whether Epic or Apple wins, we win either way, because fuck both of them.
Google >>>>>> Epic Games though.

 

[hamohamo]

isnt that actually google though...?

Apple is exploiting the stupidness of people to get their money despite their products being subpar. Google is providing a an enormous shitton of life changing services for free and made android which is open-source.

 

[ccfman2004]

Epic has to pay Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony for all in-app purchases too and there is no way around that either. Not sure what Sony or Nintendo charge but Microsoft charges the same 30% that Apple and Google charge.

 

[Snintendog]

Honestly Just best case scenario Epic finally dies and china is banned from operating any business in the world.