> or set a precedent that's going to screw every payment provider in America and open a flood gate for fraudulent payments.
...
> but surely it's going to set all sorts of nasty precedents?
Just going to comment on this part.
Supreme court decisions has a long history of making very narrow decisions, and in that question there is a clear out that they could use. The precedent can be that apple can refuse epic if it is in order to prevent fraudulent payments, but not in order to enforce a 30% tax in an online market place. That would narrow the decision down and allow payment providers to operate like they do now, but not apple. It would also not force wallmart to stock "mom & pop" random ketchup brand, because it would not be a online market and the purpose would not be to enforce a 30% tax.
Courts have a lot of room to narrow decisions down based on intent, on circumstances, and even the outcome on the specific market as a whole.
Just going to comment on this part.
Supreme court decisions has a long history of making very narrow decisions, and in that question there is a clear out that they could use. The precedent can be that apple can refuse epic if it is in order to prevent fraudulent payments, but not in order to enforce a 30% tax in an online market place. That would narrow the decision down and allow payment providers to operate like they do now, but not apple. It would also not force wallmart to stock "mom & pop" random ketchup brand, because it would not be a online market and the purpose would not be to enforce a 30% tax.
Courts have a lot of room to narrow decisions down based on intent, on circumstances, and even the outcome on the specific market as a whole.