Epic vs. Apple Australian side quest allowed to resume Epic Games has had a win in Australia, with the nation’s Federal Court permitting it to sue Apple over its insistence that it alone can process in-app purchases. The developer of hit game Fortnite sued Apple in Australia in November 2020, as a side quest to similar action in the USA brought after Epic offered its own in-app …
IANAL
I don't get those sorts of clauses.
All contracts exist within a legal framework. Those clauses are just saying that the contract exists within a certain jurisdiction.
Imagine a scenario where a an Aussie business is selling to an American business. Which countries laws should apply ? If there is a legal dispute where should it be heard?
As a business I would offer certain terms and conditions in the sale. One of those terms is that the laws of my country (not yours) apply to the transaction. That way as a business I need only worry about laws in one country (mine) not the laws in your country (that's your problem). This is typical for those sorts of agreements. It's only when the customer is really big can they force the terms to be in their country.
Surely the laws of the country you're selling in apply also?
Between you and Apple, yes, between Epic and Apple no. The core point here is that Epic are not selling (on the iphone) in Australia. Apple are selling on Epic's behalf. Epic have essentially signed a global distribution deal with Apple.
There are 2 agreements (contracts) in place here. Consumer (you) to business (Apple) and a business (Apple) to business (Epic). Epic would now like to have a consumer to business relationship to you, but the terms of the contract that they signed with Apple are preventing them.
You can't just opt out of Aussie law being applicable surely?
Why not? As a consumer you want the legal protection of Aussie laws, and as a person in Oz you're bound by them anyway, but as a company there might be a competitive advantage if picking laws from elsewhere. What if neither happen to be in Australia?
From what I can see I'd have to agree with Apple on this one. I cannot see any good grounds for Epic to file in Australia.
"Why not? As a consumer you want the legal protection of Aussie laws, and as a person in Oz you're bound by them anyway, but as a company there might be a competitive advantage if picking laws from elsewhere. What if neither happen to be in Australia?"
I think the argument falls down when both parties have a physical presence in Australia and that Australia is where the purported harm is occurring. That's enough to justify an Aussie court taking jurisdiction and precedence over any contract terms. After all, in most countries, the legal system always takes precedence over contract terms hence disputes involving Ts&Cs almost always being settled before getting to court. Few companies want those "contracts" scrutinised by judges, instead relying on the majority to take it or leave it.
But it's great/horrible if the press is involved, kind of like with all things. Say hypothetically 6 out 7 countries find you guilty, what's up with the 7th country? Even if that 7th country is your home country, it's not a good look. With the way social media seemingly influences people who have no legal influence, to rapidly have legal influence, it's especially worse (of course, I guess it simply is people who have the most influence).
...so I don't quite understand why companies think they should be allowed to dictate to people that ALL cases should be heard in a jurisdiction that will favour the company. If you want to play in the global economy then you should be bound by the laws of whichever country the purchaser resides in, not some tame US court that will automatically support the local Big Business / campaign funder...
Lawyers charge whatever their clients are willing to pay for their services. Want a cheaper lawyer? Go somewhere else where a cheaper lawyer will take your case. Ask yourself though...Why are they cheaper? Do you want to take the risk of losing your case because they might not be as skilled as the more expensive option? Going cheap could turn out to be false economy.
I would suggest that "The best" legal representation is less about knowledge of the law than the spendable contacts/favours said represetation has accumulated where the case will be held.
So yes, justice is more often for sale across the world than otherwise, given that there is big money to be made. Be it the police or high court judges IMHO the percentage who keep their jobs is relative to how much they kick upstairs.
For my part justice is one thing that would always have benefited from automation i.e. Crime X = Y punishment - z mitigation factor but that would make it fair and that is not what " legel justice" is about.
Consider who makes the laws and who they actually protect, example would be punishment for murder and that for arson without casualities showing that property is valued greater than life.
Automated justice would be fair? Someone hasn’t seen the systems used in the US that give heavier sentences to people of colour. The tech world needs to lose its fetish of automating everything, it is extremely dangerous when the fools doing so have such narrow experiences and views.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
