The data might be from an old breach, but the data are also unlikely to change very often, so is more than likely current for a large proportion of those who have been exposed (phone number, date of birth, full name, etc).
Their news reporting isn't that bad, but what is bad is the mixing of a large number of editorial pieces that do still wave a neoliberalist flag. I encourage having a look at https://www.adfontesmedia.com/interactive-media-bias-chart-2... for a decent appraisal of various sources.
That’s Apple’s prerogative after banning a developer who has violated their contract with them. Otherwise you could have shady developers just create numerous of legal entities to effectively brute force their way on to the store, and Apple would be unable to respond.
This case is less about monopolisation and more about inequality between two parties when settling a contract. Nothing stops Epic from making an Epic phone and doing the same.
Why should a court intervene in the contracting of two private parties? Epic started this fight by intentionally breaching an existing contract with Apple, only so they can get better terms.
Microsoft does the same as Apple, it makes money off micro-transactions and the ability for its competitors to sell on Xbox/Microsoft store, use trade dress, and be included in those hideous green media cases.
Last I checked Epic, Steam, Origin, uPlay, Google, Amazon, SetApp, most retailers, etc... do the same practice to varying degrees. Shrewd business practice != injustice/anticompetitive practices, just because a company has a large market share or is personally abhorrent to you.
The entire purpose of civil courts is to mediate disputes between private parties. Courts are also the mechanism that give private contracts any authority.
Civil suits are also one of the mechanisms by which government regulation is enforced. The alternative to that would be the government inserting itself into private relations even when there is no dispute between the parties; which is even more heavy handed (albeit somewhat justified).
It is a weird quark that you often have to violate the terms of a contract in order to get standing to challenge it; but that is the procedural rules we have.
The weird quirks are acerbated by Arbitration clauses designed to keep disagreements from ever going to court and instead being handled by "closed door, opaque third party negotiators". Until Apple closed the contract indicating a breach, Epic would have been forced to go to Arbitration to settle the matter, rather than get their day in court.
I understand, but disagree. They didn’t need to violate the contract for creation of a lawsuit. Hell, they could have terminated their agreement and try to contract with apple without accepting the default agreement.
They had standing the whole time, albeit with a limitation to arbitration at first instance for certain claims, which may have been bypassed on certain grounds anyway.
The temporary restraining order (injunction) application claims they want to be able to post Fortnite on the App Store without scrutiny from Apple and lastly that they regain access to a working developer account for unreal engine.
I recommend watching the virtual legality series on this topic which might interest you on the ins and outs of the legal dispute. The latest episode covering Microsoft is here: https://youtu.be/-jXJjllz00I
Would a company making an assertion that it wasn't being snooped on before they were actually snooped be guilty of fraud after the fact has changed? Given they can't say they are not being snooped on...
