Hacker News Reader

Comment by scarface74 | Hacker News Reader

I’m usually opposed to government regulation in tech or giving the government power more in general.

But I don’t see any negative consequences of passing a law saying a platform must provide a reason with documentation if a paying user is banned. There also must be an independent review board that is answerable to the board of directors. But not the CEO.

On the other hand, it came out in the Epic case that there is “no duty to deal”. Meaning you can’t force a company to do business with anyone as long as it isn’t for a protected reason.

The government can’t and shouldn’t force a company to do business with someone as in the Walmart case. Would you want the government to force a health or drug store to sell cigarettes?

View on HN

> Would you want the government to force a health or drug store to sell cigarettes?

Health/drug stores are not a monopoly (or a duopoly if you count google, but still a monopoly for apple users).

If you could get apps for iDevices on "every street corner", one of them not selling apps from that specific developer wouldn't matter either.

I wish the Apple developer program was set up more like a lease, where you're leasing a "storefront" from Apple. And they can deny you, or choose not to renew your lease, or buy you out of your lease. But they shouldn't need to approve individual app updates any more than a shopping center owner needs to approve the individual merchandise.

No one would sign a lease that said "we can kick you out at any time," but that's what developers are agreeing to with Apple.

It would require Apple to more selective up front about who they chose to do business with, but I think that would be a good thing, because it would give developers more stability once they were "in."

> Would you want the government to force a health or drug store to sell cigarettes?

That's a bizarre argument. You could argue similarly against speed limits, because next the government will force you to drive in reverse or something.

What's special about paying users? You could just refund them when you ban them.

A refund does not make you a non paying customer. In the same way getting injured by a faulty product can't be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore".

Accepting payment makes some obligations more real. As a free user you accept whatever tos apple throws at you and that's it. As a paying customer you buy a service, with many protections that includes. (depending on your country)

>A refund does not make you a non paying customer. In the same way getting injured by a faulty product can't be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore".

A faulty product that simply doesn't work can totally be resolved with "fully refunded, they're not our customer anymore".

Technically true, but missing the context. What happens is regulated by applicable local law: if both sides are happy with that solution and it's legal to do so, the issue may be resolved with a refund.

For example in Australia ACCC says that sure, you're entitled to a refund as one of the options when a product/service fails. But that doesn't stop you from being able to claim damages or losses even if you're fully refunded. https://www.accc.gov.au/consumers/consumer-rights-guarantees...

Actually I'd love to see the result of involving ACCC in this situation if someone in Oz gets terminated. They can be very detailed in their analysis if they're interested.

I don't know how things work in Australia, but I'd be really surprised if someone signing up to sell apps on the app store would be treated as a consumer.

Also, paying for the right to develop on Apple platforms is hardly a service.

ACCC rules apply to products and services. The first sentence in the paid apps agreement is:

> You hereby appoint Apple and Apple Subsidiaries (collectively “Apple”) as: (i) Your agent for the marketing and delivery of the Licensed Applications to End-Users

Apple is providing devs a service.

There are services which Apple provides to developers as a part of the agreement, but to be an Apple Developer involves much more than that.

>ACCC rules apply to products and services.

Over here in Europe consumer protection laws generally do not apply to contracts between businesses. i.e. A photographer buying a camera for their business use would not necessarily be covered.

Right. That would make as much sense as letting someone walk on burglary charges because they brought all of the stolen goods back and arranged them as they were before.

Not sure I follow, burglary usually refers to entering a building without permission for the purpose of committing another crime e.g. theft.

Bringing stolen goods back and arranging them as they were before would often be a sufficient defense against a theft charge, as an intention to permanently deprive the owner of the item is often a necessary element of the crime. This would presumably also reduce your burglary charge to trespass.

https://vistacriminallaw.com/borrowing-theft/

https://www.floridacriminaljustice.com/blog/2017/08/theft-is...

There's no evidence that Apple is refunding banned developer accounts, either for the yearly developer fee or for unpaid App Store sales.

In fact, a few of my indie developer friends have gotten their monthly App Store payments held up by Apple while Apple investigates so-called "unusual activity" (which turned out to be nothing).

>There's no evidence that Apple is refunding banned developer accounts, either for the yearly developer fee or for unpaid App Store sales.

I'm not really sure how that's relevant here, we're discussing hypothetical regulation that scarface74 is proposing.

>In fact, a few of my indie developer friends have gotten their monthly App Store payments held up by Apple while Apple investigates so-called "unusual activity" (which turned out to be nothing).

This is likely unavoidable as Apple is subject to a number of AML regulations.

Every company that deals with payments does that. Banks, PayPal and I’m sure the various places like UpWork. You routinely hear that Amex puts people in “financial review” and locks your account out because of “suspicious activity”

> Every company that deals with payments does that. Banks,

Never in my life has my bank withheld a payment. And I've never had a job paycheck held back because of "suspicious activity".

> Amex puts people in “financial review” and locks your account

Amex doesn't pay you; you pay Amex.

I'm talking about companies refusing to pay what they already owe you. App Store payments to developers are for app sales that are already long completed, and Apple has already taken the money from App Store customers.

>Never in my life has my bank withheld a payment. And I've never had a job paycheck held back because of "suspicious activity".

Either your bank is particularly lenient or your transactions are particularly boring. Most paychecks definitely fall into the "particularly boring" category.

OTOH App store transactions are a relatively big money laundering risk, you are receiving payments from large amounts of different people.

> OTOH App store transactions are a relatively big money laundering risk

To a longtime indie developer???

We're not talking about huge sums of money here. One month's income for a little indie App Store developer. More or less (probably less) the amount of a software engineer's monthly paycheck.

And what's Apple's "evidence" for money laundering in these cases anyway? It always turns out to be nothing, and payments are eventually restored, but the developer is deprived of cash flow for a month or several with no explanation ever.

Anyway, for developer accounts that Apple terminates (again without explanation), I believe that Apple simply confiscates the money and never pays what it owes to the developer.

This is unfortunately it goes. Nothing Apple specific.

>And what's Apple's "evidence" for money laundering in these cases anyway? It always turns out to be nothing, and payments are eventually restored

Unfortunately, they're by law not allowed to discuss these things.

>Anyway, for developer accounts that Apple terminates (again without explanation), I believe that Apple simply confiscates the money and never pays what it owes to the developer.

Unlikely.

You'd think so, but you'd be wrong.

I can guarantee you that if you start depositing large payments over $10K that your bank is going to report it - it’s required by the law.

If the bank thinks you are laundering money, there are going to be investigation.

I once unknowingly deposited a fake money order in my checking account. I was naive and I fell for the old “we need to pay for three months rent with this money order and can you refund the difference”.

Before I even called the bank once it dawned on me that it was probably fraudulent, the bank had already put a hold on my account.

If Apple think you are working in a company that is under sanctions, they are going to verify that you aren’t.

> I can guarantee you that if you start depositing large payments over $10K that your bank is going to report it - it’s required by the law.

What do you mean exactly by "deposit"? These are automatic deposits from Apple or from an employer.

A ton of people make >$120K a year and receive >$10K in payments per month. It's not unusual at all.

> I once unknowingly deposited a fake money order in my checking account.

How is this relevant? There are no fake money orders here.

> If Apple think you are working in a company that is under sanctions

Again, how is this relevant to longtime indie devs?

> A ton of people make >$120K a year and receive >$10K in payments per month. It's not unusual at all.

Whether it’s unusual is subject to a Risk Assessment. NACHA happily sells Risk Assessment Workbooks to your bank’s Compliance Department [1].

[1]: https://www.nacha.org/products/ach-risk-assessment-workbook

Because if you don’t pay for a product, you shouldn’t expect much. It’s why it amazes me that people tie so much of their lives to Google - an ad company.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com