Apple is citing court rulings that say they can. Epic is citing the new DMA saying they can’t. I’m not clear about this one though - while in spirit the DMA is about providing competitive access to stores of so-called gatekeepers, it’s unclear to me what the letter of the law is on this specific issue. This may be known by someone just not me, but regardless all of this is new and hasn’t been challenged in courts so expect everyone to test the limits of the law.
I’m pretty sure it’s up and running. Either one of them killing it would be the nuclear option for both companies. If I remember right, Epic actually split engine development off as a separate dev account before its stunt in order to protect it. I might be misremembering.
Just read the DMA. It’s incredibly vague. That said, I think it comes down to whether Apple is being “fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.” This has a special meaning under the law with respect to technology licensing, but not sure if it is intended to mean the same thing here. If so, the idea is that apple might be forced to contract with Epic, as long as Epic lives up to fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory terms. The question here is likely whether Apple is being discriminatory. Arguments both ways. Apple’s best argument may be that it makes everyone live up to the same terms, and part of those terms are that Apple can terminate you for violating them, with no requirement to ever let you back in just because you created some subsidiary to get around the ban. Europe being Europe, eventually Europe may make Apple let Epic in.
“For software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services listed in the designation decision, gatekeepers should publish and apply general conditions of access that should be fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory.”
…
”
The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures to ensure that third-party software applications or software application stores do not endanger the integrity of the hardware or operating system provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper.
Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall not be prevented from applying, to the extent that they are strictly necessary and proportionate, measures and settings other than default settings, enabling end users to effectively protect security in relation to third-party software applications or software application stores, provided that such measures and settings other than default settings are duly justified by the gatekeeper.”
…
”
12. The gatekeeper shall apply fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9).
For that purpose, the gatekeeper shall publish general conditions of access, including an alternative dispute settlement mechanism.
The Commission shall assess whether the published general conditions of access comply with this paragraph.
13. The gatekeeper shall not have general conditions for terminating the provision of a core platform service that are disproportionate. The gatekeeper shall ensure that the conditions of termination can be exercised without undue difficulty.”