[jkulubya]

Implicit in your question is that the terms are valid. Epic will make the case that they’re not.

And if they succeed, then the terms will be worth nothing, and Apple would have to explain why they go around signing illegal agreements that for example allow them to punch people in the face.

If Epic fails, then yeah, the legal terms say for example that the punishment for what Epic did is a punch in the face, and Apple is just enforcing that legally.

[ChrisLomont]

>Implicit in your question is that the terms are valid. Epic will make the case that they’re not.

What law would you claim disallows limiting payment systems?