[Despegar]

>Instead Epic decided to sue Apple in court.

This gives the impression that suing them is what led to Apple terminating their relationship, but that isn't the case. Epic could have sued Apple without the theatrics and they'd have been fine. They didn't even need to violate the terms of the developer agreement to bring their antitrust lawsuit, which is largely about the developer agreement.

[Hamuko]

I imagine what Epic did helps them out in the legal proceedings considering how the antitrust laws in the US are based on consumer benefit.

Epic introduces a new payment system and passes on the savings to the consumer. Thanks to payment system competition, consumers can save 20% when buying the same items. Apple sees this and completely removes Epic's game to protect its own interests.

It's not hard to see how Apple's behaviour is harming consumers.

[gpm]

> Epic could have sued Apple without the theatrics and they'd have been fine.

Without the "theatrics" epic would not have had standing to sue and the case would have been dismissed.

[Despegar]

As a party to the developer agreement with Apple they clearly have standing to sue. And since one of the counts in their complaint is that they're being denied use of an "essential facility", they wouldn't even need to have a contractual relationship to have standing to sue.

[zucker42]

Is this true? Can't you claim standing based on something you would do except for an illegal contract or illegal law?

[gpm]

I don't have a good quick cite for you on contract law, but here's an example for criminal law

https://blog.seattlepi.com/seattlepolitics/2015/05/07/judge-...