Apple used an Uno reverse card to evade the law, and it may have worked

AppleInsider reports that the CMA released a Market Study Notice, but as per Apple’s appeal, it doesn’t adhere to established requirements, for where the law requires the use of the word “Must”, the Notice itself contained “Shall”. Clever.

You see, by means of procedural technicality, “Shall” is too vague. The law expects the usage of the word “Must” when speaking about an obligation, or in other words — about the thing that someone is expected to do. In this case, the someone is Apple and the thing is what the investigation might’ve resulted in. So, if this entire thing works, the tech giant can potentially escape the investigation. Or at least for a time, until another one, which adheres to the technicalities, is launched. However, it’s more likely that the CMA will continue the investigation on a lower level, which means less freedom to poke at Apple’s rotten parts.

But why would Apple want that in the first place? Well, if the CMA does find something, and manages to prove that it’s affecting the concept of fair competition in a negative way, that would mean that Apple is doing something wrong. Which, in turn, would mean that they have to sort it out asap. Do you see how that may cost time and money? Well, why do that, when you can focus on the expected iPhone 15.

Regardless of the outcome, Apple’s law team certainly deserves kudos for figuring out a way to withhold the imminent investigation. But what this entire ordeal means factually remains for your imagination to dissect.

Apple used an Uno reverse card to evade the law, and it may have worked

How did usage of the word “Shall” save Apple from a legal investigation?

The greatest Sony Xperia 1 IV deal is back with a bang

Is Apple’s Mac Mini M2 any good? Here’s what reviews say

Related Posts