# Epic Games sues Apple over App Store commissions after Fortnite’s sideload Date: 2020 ## The fact On 13 August 2020 Epic sued Apple after Fortnite was removed for offering a sideload payment, a completed docket on 30 percent store tolls under Cook. Courts later mixed the remedies. ## Context Neighbouring privacy labels are the same year’s store policy. Neighbouring DMA is later EU law that named the same toll. He did not write the Sherman Act. Privacy labels 2020 are neighbouring store policy. DMA 2023 is later EU gatekeeper law. DOJ 2024 is later US complaint. [Tim Cook](/people/tim-cook) has been Apple CEO since 24 August 2011. He does not write a DOJ complaint, a Commission DMA decision, an Irish Finance Act, or a Chinese Cyberspace Administration rule. Steve Jobs is a different, dead person. A product launch is not a labour statute. A privacy keynote is not a completed DMA compliance certificate. Keep those dates separate. A 10-K climate page is not a unique ppm. An assembler audit is not a unique suicide count as his personal tally. A DMA listing is not a completed sideload world. A DOJ complaint is not a breakup. TSMC fabricates; Foxconn assembles; App Review enforces. ## Evidence and sources Official record: N.D. Cal. — Epic Games v. Apple, complaint 13 August 2020 (https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/; United States District Court). Independent record: Reuters — Epic Games sues Apple over App Store after Fortnite ban (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-epic-idUSKCN2590K4; Reuters). What these sources establish is the occurrence, the date, the instrument type, and the limit of personal authorship. What they do not establish is a unique counterfactual for later welfare without a measured series. United States District Court carries the official instrument or communique. Reuters records the same dated act independently. ## Significance The path is [antitrust-pressure-in-digital-markets](/drivers/antitrust-pressure-in-digital-markets): a completed high-profile store-toll docket is an accountability instrument. A complaint is not a breakup. ## What is established and what is not Established: 13 August 2020 Epic complaint and Fortnite removal, independently reported. Not established: that the 30 percent toll was thereby globally illegal, or a unique later indie-revenue coefficient from the filing. What would change the picture: a contradictory original with a different date or name, a later repeal, a court that vacated the instrument, or a measured series that can be argued, with lag and alternatives, as a consequence of this instrument rather than of later institutions. This page is only about Epic Games sues Apple over App Store commissions after Fortnite’s sideload on 2020-08-13. The official record used here is “N.D. Cal. — Epic Games v. Apple, complaint 13 August 2020” (United States District Court). The independent record is “Reuters — Epic Games sues Apple over App Store after Fortnite ban” (Reuters). The date is the date of this instrument, not a licence to back-date every later harm or benefit. Epic sued. App Review removed Fortnite. Courts later mixed injunctions. He did not sit as the judge.. A later repeal, court stay, or successor order would be a different Fact with a different date. Keep United States District Court and Reuters on separate citations. The locator pair for 2020-08-13 remains https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ and https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-epic-idUSKCN2590K4. That pair identifies Epic Games sues Apple over App Store commissions after Fortnite’s sideload, not a later speech about Epic Games sues Apple over App Store commissions after Fortnite’s sideload. Co-authors and later implementers named in Context remain on the file. Epic Games sues Apple over App Store commissions after Fortnite’s sideload on 2020-08-13 is not a licence to treat every later United States District Court communique as this same act. The independent carrier remains Reuters. If a later repeal, stay, or successor instrument exists, it needs its own date and its own row. This dossier refuses to average Epic Games sues Apple over App Store commissions after Fortnite’s sideload into a personality. The contribution described on this Person row is limited to He was CEO of the defendant. Epic sued. App Review removed Fortnite. Courts later mixed injunctions. He did not sit as the judge. That limit is the alternative to treating office-holding as authorship of every later series. ## People - Tim Cook: https://factrail.ai/people/tim-cook ## Drivers - Antitrust Pressure in Digital Markets: https://factrail.ai/drivers/antitrust-pressure-in-digital-markets - Digital-Platform Power Concentration: https://factrail.ai/drivers/digital-platform-power-concentration ## Sources - https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-epic-idUSKCN2590K4 - https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/ ## Methodology https://factrail.ai/methodology Canonical: https://factrail.ai/facts/aapl-epic-2020