Apple asks court to toss Epic Games lawsuit in Australia

Apple wants a "Fortnite" court case in Australia thrown out because Epic Games had promised to settle disputes exclusively in the U.S.

Back in November, Epic Games filed a claim in the Australian Federal Court's NSW registry that accused Apple of using its alleged App Store monopoly to breach antitrust regulations.

During the case's first hearing on Tuesday, Apple argued that Epic Games had contractually promised to settle any disputes or litigation with the Cupertino tech giant in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As such, it asked for the case to be tossed out, the Australian Associated Press reported.

Epic, for its part, argued that its case concerned "great competition harm" involving specific breaches of Australia law.

The two companies are currently embroiled in a legal dispute in the U.S. after the "Fortnite" maker baited Apple into removing the popular battle royale game from the App Store. Epic immediately filed a prepared lawsuit against Apple shortly after.

In October, a U.S. District Court judge refused to order Apple to reinstate "Fortnite" to the App Store, but did issue an order preventing Apple from taking action against Epic Games' Unreal Engine.

12 Comments

sflocal 16 Years · 6138 comments

About 4 years ago

AppleInsider said:

Epic Games had contractually promised to settle any disputes or litigation with the Cupertino tech giant in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. As such, it asked for the case to be tossed out, the Australian Associated Press reported.

Oh sure... because we all know how Epic likes to honor contracts right?

DAalseth 6 Years · 3067 comments

Apple argued that Epic Games had contractually promised to settle any disputes or litigation with the Cupertino tech giant in the U.S.

Epic, for its part, argued that its case concerned "great competition harm" involving specific breaches of Australia law

So Epic responded to Apple’s argument by saying something utterly unrelated? Whether the issue involves “harm” and “breaches of Australian Law”, is not the point of Apple’s argument. Epic is contractually bound to settle this in the US. Anything else is just smoke.

crowley 15 Years · 10431 comments

DAalseth said:

Apple argued that Epic Games had contractually promised to settle any disputes or litigation with the Cupertino tech giant in the U.S.

Epic, for its part, argued that its case concerned "great competition harm" involving specific breaches of Australia law

So Epic responded to Apple’s argument by saying something utterly unrelated? Whether the issue involves “harm” and “breaches of Australian Law”, is not the point of Apple’s argument. Epic is contractually bound to settle this in the US. Anything else is just smoke.

I'm not sure that Epic's contractual obligation would be of any interest to the Australian court if it's specific Australian law that has been breached, just as a breach of Australian law wouldn't be of any interest to a US court, even if there's a contractual obligation to litigate in the US. You can't contractually oblige yourself out of having to abide by a nation's laws.

I'm not on Epic's side (and I don't actually know if any Australian law has been broken), but I think in this particular regard they probably have it right.

larryjw 9 Years · 1036 comments

crowley said:

DAalseth said:

Apple argued that Epic Games had contractually promised to settle any disputes or litigation with the Cupertino tech giant in the U.S.

Epic, for its part, argued that its case concerned "great competition harm" involving specific breaches of Australia law

So Epic responded to Apple’s argument by saying something utterly unrelated? Whether the issue involves “harm” and “breaches of Australian Law”, is not the point of Apple’s argument. Epic is contractually bound to settle this in the US. Anything else is just smoke.

I'm not sure that Epic's contractual obligation would be of any interest to the Australian court if it's specific Australian law that has been breached, just as a breach of Australian law wouldn't be of any interest to a US court, even if there's a contractual obligation to litigate in the US. You can't contractually oblige yourself out of having to abide by a nation's laws.

I'm not on Epic's side (and I don't actually know if any Australian law has been broken), but I think in this particular regard they probably have it right.

There are both international treaties and the doctrine of Comity which will apply. What standing would Epic have in Australia? They're an American company suing an American company and there is an alleged contract under American law.

Why would the Australian courts want to inject itself and sink its resources in dealing with these combatants fighting over the interpretation of American Law? Once the American courts have decided, then Australian courts might have jurisdiction on deciding how to deal with foreign laws.

Detnator 4 Years · 287 comments

This looks a lot like clutching at straws to me.

People can argue "Apple antitrust" all they like but investigations don't mean anyone's breaking any laws. Even Tim Cook admits that Apple and other large tech companies should get some scrutiny and he more or less welcomes it.

But when the rubber hits the road, Epic's legal case and even moral arguments have so many inconsistencies and holes. Tim Sweeney is not only an arrogant, self-obsessed a**h*** but a complete idiot as well.

I'd love to know how this guy hasn't been thrown out by the board. I haven't checked. How much of Epic does he own?