EU Probes Apple's Decision to Shut Down Epic's Developer Account

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Apple’s termination of Epic Games’ European developer account on the eve of the EU’s Digital Markets Act enforcement is raising questions about whether Apple is deliberately undermining mandated competition on iOS. Commenters debate Apple’s justification—citing Epic’s past ToS violations and a U.S. court finding of “malicious compliance”—against EU rules that require gatekeepers to enable rival app stores and interoperability. Many foresee significant fines and potentially even stricter structural remedies if regulators conclude Apple is using its control over developer access to sidestep the new law.

Apple’s Termination of Epic’s EU Account

  • One side argues Apple reasonably dropped a “litigious” partner with a history of ToS violations (Fortnite payment changes), citing a US judge’s finding of Epic’s “malicious compliance.”
  • Others say this is “pre‑crime”: Apple is blocking Epic’s EU subsidiary based on old US behavior, in a different jurisdiction.
  • Critics stress that Apple’s own ToS cannot override EU law; the DMA grants the right to run alternative app stores, and Apple is using its gatekeeper position to neutralize a competitor.

DMA, Gatekeeper Status, and Legal Obligations

  • DMA has been in force since late 2022 with a long grace period; as of “yesterday” in the thread, big platforms are fully liable.
  • Commenters argue that if a developer account is required to operate a third‑party store, Apple cannot weaponize that requirement against specific rivals.
  • Some highlight that EU rules explicitly require gatekeepers to enable interoperability while maintaining high security and data protection, shared between Apple and third‑party providers.

Security vs. Openness

  • Pro‑Apple view: third‑party app stores get “keys to the phone”; past noncompliance by Epic makes them a security and compliance risk Apple can’t afford under EU rules.
  • Opposing view: security should be enforced via OS mechanisms and user permissions, not by excluding competitors; Apple’s own security track record (e.g., spyware exploits) undercuts its argument.
  • Debate over whether Apple should remain responsible for security of third‑party distribution vs. shifting that burden to store operators and users.

Market Power, Strategy, and Potential Consequences

  • Many see Apple as a de‑facto monopoly/gatekeeper similar to Microsoft in the 1990s, using control to protect its “Apple tax” and block rivals.
  • Several commenters frame Apple’s behavior as deliberate “malicious compliance” and delay tactics: ignore or bend EU law, pay fines if needed, and bank profits.
  • Others expect this to backfire: escalating fines (percent of global turnover), tougher remedies, possibly forcing Apple to allow stores without any business relationship or fees to Apple.
  • Some worry US political pressure could blunt EU enforcement; others think the EU will “take the gloves off” given Apple’s repeated defiance.