EU Probes Apple's Decision to Shut Down Epic's Developer Account

[MacRumors]

The European Commission has requested "further explanations" from Apple over its decision yesterday to terminate the developer account of Epic Games, the Financial Times reports.

The EC said it was investigating under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a new law aimed at curbing the power of the biggest online platforms. Tech companies faced a March 7 deadline to comply with the legislation. The Commission added that it was also evaluating whether Apple's actions might have breached other EU laws.

Apple on Wednesday announced the termination of Epic Games Sweden's developer account on a global scale, citing the game developer's recurrent untrustworthy actions. Apple said courts had previously granted Apple the authority to end the accounts of any of Epic's subsidiaries due to contractual infractions.

The move thwarted Epic's plan to launch an Epic Games Store on iOS in the EU and bring its Fortnite game back to the iPhone, which it claimed was in line with new EU regulations allowing for alternative app marketplaces on iOS. Starting with iOS 17.4, Apple allows alternative app marketplaces on the iPhone in the EU, as part of its compliance with the DMA. Epic argues that Apple's account termination violates the DMA and significantly limits competition on iOS devices.

Epic condemned Apple's decision as a violation of competitive principles, interpreting it as evidence of Apple's unwillingness to allow legitimate competition on its platform. The company claimed Apple's action was an attempt to eliminate a major potential rival to the App Store.

Apple's action was the latest in a broader legal conflict that started in 2020 when Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store for bypassing its payment system rules. In retaliation, Epic launched lawsuits in the U.S. and Australia, accusing Apple of anti-competitive behavior.

Article Link: EU Probes Apple's Decision to Shut Down Epic's Developer Account

 

[yellow8]

EU has been busy these days.

 

[contacos]

What a dumb move from Apple to do it right before the DMA goes into effect like at least wait a few weeks

 

[User 6502]

Of course this was going to happen. This will just be another humiliation for Apple which will be forced to backtrack one of their immoral decisions yet again. I also laugh at all the people who were saying this wasn’t going to happen because these are two American companies and an American tribunal deemed this acceptable. First of all the subsidiaries involved are very much European so American tribunals sentences have no value, but most importantly the real issue is that one requires an Apple account to publish outside the App Store, which is of course what eventually will be ripped apart by the EU.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Probes? Was it consensual? How about investigates?

 

[threesixty360]

I think they may have done this to push the whole thing to the Supreme Court in the EU.
You're basically forcing a company to go into a contract with another company who have consistently lied and acted in bad faith. Is that even legal?

Is Apple now a utility company providing energy or something? The EU will have to revise what their rules mean. Again, they haven't thought it through. On one side they say that apple needs to make sure apps from third parties are secure etc, which means they have to sign these apps one way or another centrally. But on the other side they are implying apple should let software come in from anywhere and they have no right to vet it. Can you have both things on a OS that is designed in this way? And more importantly, should apple be legally forced to help companies deploy on their platform if that company is harmful or dishonest to Apple?

Lots to chew on here.. My bet is the EU has tangled itself up without fully understanding the technology.

 

[SueperDrive]

Round 2,….. fight!!!

 

[User 6502]

I think they may have done this to push the whole thing to the Supreme Court in the EU.
You're basically forcing a company to go into a contract with another company who have consistently lied and acted in bad faith. Is that even legal?

Is Apple now a utility company providing energy or something? The EU will have to revise what their rules mean. Again, they haven't thought it through. On one side they say that apple needs to make sure apps from third parties are secure etc, which means they have to sign these apps one way or another centrally. But on the other side they are implying apple should let software come in from anywhere and they have no right to vet it. Can you have both things on a OS that is designed in this way? And more importantly, should apple be legally forced to help companies deploy on their platform if that company is harmful or dishonest to Apple?

Lots to chew on here.. My bet is the EU has tangled itself up without fully understanding the technology.

There is no Supreme Court in the EU. There is the European court of justice which is what will ultimately decide on this. What will be put in doubt is not Apple right to sign contracts with parties of their choosing, but the fact a contract with Apple is at all needed to publish apps outside the App Store. The whole point of the DMA is break Apple’s monopoly on the iPhone apps, so it is this requirement that will eventually be removed: Apple will be free not to sign an agreement with other parties, but the other parties will not need such agreement to create other app stores or publish apps in them.

 

[Anaxarxes]

This is getting a bit ridiculous.

Would they do the same probe if a confectionary manufacturer gets delisted from a supermarket chain?
How about Amazon removing a marketplace account due to the owner not adhering to their policies?

This is not related to the fact that Apple not doing enough for alternative marketplaces - EU was right on that one.

Apple simply chooses not to go into business with EPIC on any of their services. It's completely in their right to do so.

EU waving the flag of free market and getting into forcing a business to do business with another business is not OK.

 

[klasma]

The original news is from Reuters I believe: https://www.reuters.com/technology/...-escalating-apple-epic-games-spat-2024-03-07/

In particular:

"We are also evaluating whether Apple's actions raise doubts on their compliance with the DSA (Digital Services Act) and the P2B (Platform to Business Regulation), given the links between the developer programme membership and the App store as designated VLOP (very large online platform)."

Under the DSA, decisions suspending or terminating accounts have to be proportionate and with due regard to fundamental rights while the P2B requires a platform to notify a business user when terms and conditions are changed and before an account is closed.

 

[Athonline]

Unless Apple can prove that allowing Epic to have a developer account —and by extension an alt store— they will look like a monopoly and acting against the spirit of the DMA. Epic, on the hand, can easily demonstrate the Apple is acting in a vindictive way.

At the end, this will lead to a forced backtracking and even requiring Apple to change their alt-store policies.

 

[Apple Mac Daz]

Hopefully this backfires on Apple and they get hit by more 💵

 

[klasma]

EU waving the flag of free market and getting into forcing a business to do business with another business is not OK.

Nobody is forcing Apple to require a business relationship for apps on alternative app stores.

 

[wbrat]

Is Apple now a utility company providing energy or something? The EU will have to revise what their rules mean. Again, they haven't thought it through. On one side they say that apple needs to make sure apps from third parties are secure etc, which means they have to sign these apps one way or another centrally. But on the other side they are implying apple should let software come in from anywhere and they have no right to vet it. Can you have both things on a OS that is designed in this way? And more importantly, should apple be legally forced to help companies deploy on their platform if that company is harmful or dishonest to Apple?

Lots to chew on here.. My bet is the EU has tangled itself up without fully understanding the technology.

Well... taking into account how many people use iPhones... what if Microsoft started to dictate who can and who cannot install apps on Windows? Btw., remember Internet Explorer case?

And in this case Apple's issue was not that Epic's app was not secure. If Epic is "dishonest" to Apple then do not accept their app in the App Store. But allow them to use alternative store which is now an option in the EU.

 

[The_Gream]

I personally don’t always agree with Apple’s actions, but in this regard, Epic has proven to be the bad actor in submitting software with hidden functionality, breached a contract because of their hidden functionality, and has continued to whine and complain to anyone who would listen that they are not the bad guy, but big bad Apple is.

I wish Apple could do the same to Spotify, but there is one major difference… Spotify hasn’t breached their developer contract. They may whine and complain to everyone, but whining and complaining isn’t a breach.

 

[ohthehorror]

Yup. I really hate this company. Apple is like a dumpster fire of **** shows.

 

[Zest28]

EU has been busy these days.

Exactly. So YouTube is no longer able to ban users or content creators on their platform according to the EU also as Google also falls under DMA?

 

[threeseed]

Nobody is forcing Apple to require a business relationship for apps on alternative app stores.

Apple still has a right to ask developer's to pay a fee for their SDKs.

No different to Epic, Microsoft, Sony, Google etc.

 

[L92]

Yes, Epic is b.tch.
But everything around competition/commissions and all starting to have an effect on Apple's reputation. For now only amongst developers, but I don't think Apple should let this stain their image for general users. They make no money at all on their biggest "partners" (like Epic, Spotify, Netflix, etc.) because they are so stubborn to have everything in their own terms only. They should have figured out a way to be in business with them in good faith, rather than being forced to do it via courts.

 

[Pezimak]

Apple stating Epic's CEO said some hurty words won't hold any value here, I knew this was coming, Epic has got the EU on board so Apple needs to be extremely careful and just banning anything Epic related as a matter of course isn't going to win them friends, or stop the fines.

Personally I hope the EU fine Apple as they are taking the micky with their interpretation of the EU regulations and the implementation they came up with. And I can see the EU pointing that out to Apple.

 

[Ubuntu]

I think they may have done this to push the whole thing to the Supreme Court in the EU.
You're basically forcing a company to go into a contract with another company who have consistently lied and acted in bad faith. Is that even legal?

Is Apple now a utility company providing energy or something? The EU will have to revise what their rules mean. Again, they haven't thought it through. On one side they say that apple needs to make sure apps from third parties are secure etc, which means they have to sign these apps one way or another centrally. But on the other side they are implying apple should let software come in from anywhere and they have no right to vet it. Can you have both things on a OS that is designed in this way? And more importantly, should apple be legally forced to help companies deploy on their platform if that company is harmful or dishonest to Apple?

Lots to chew on here.. My bet is the EU has tangled itself up without fully understanding the technology.

To answer this question: Can you have both things on a OS that is designed in this way?

To me it sounds like the application of the macOS model (open, with App Stores but protected by notarisation) to iOS. Apple would still then have the right to vet apps... from a security POV, not a "You criticised us so we don't like you" POV (I'm simplifying, of course).

My bet is the EU has tangled itself up without fully understanding the technology.

Heh, probably.

 

[FangRock]

This is getting a bit ridiculous.

Would that do the same probe if a confectionary manufacturer gets delisted from a supermarket chain? How about Amazon removing a marketplace account due to the owner not adhering to their policies?

This is not related to the fact that Apple not doing enough for alternative marketplaces - EU was right on that one.

But Apple simply is choosing not to go into business with EPIC on any of their services. It's completely in their right to do so.

EU waving the flag of free market and getting into forcing a business to do business with another business is not OK.

I think you have slightly missed the point. There shouldn't have to be a business relationship. Think about how it works on the Mac - anyone can freely write software and distribute it - and long may that last.

 

[steve09090]

As long as they give them their $100 back, good on them. Couldn’t care less.

 

[Athonline]

This is getting a bit ridiculous.

Would that do the same probe if a confectionary manufacturer gets delisted from a supermarket chain? How about Amazon removing a marketplace account due to the owner not adhering to their policies?

This is not related to the fact that Apple not doing enough for alternative marketplaces - EU was right on that one.

But Apple simply is choosing not to go into business with EPIC on any of their services. It's completely in their right to do so.

EU waving the flag of free market and getting into forcing a business to do business with another business is not OK.

There is a difference in your examples. Apple decided to mandate a dev. account for alternative app stores —something that Apple has to allow by law now. If Apple had not decided to take a rather absurd interpretation of the DMA, they would had no trouble removing dev. accounts. However, as you need one to publish an alternative store, then you are—by extension—disallowing alternative stores without providing sufficient justification to why (within the DMA's legal framework).

A supermarket chain can delist a confectionary manufacturer, no problem with that. However, if there is only one supermarket chain and that chain delists third-party products in favour of their own brands, then it becomes a case of them acting as a monopoly.

 

[threeseed]

I think you have slightly missed the point. There shouldn't have to be a business relationship. Think about how it works on the Mac - anyone can freely write software and distribute it - and long may that last.

You need to have a business relationship with Apple to write and distribute software on the Mac.

Need to part of the developer program and submit relevant details to notarise your apps.