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.

Good point, and I assume that mediators probably can’t consider anti-trust matters while courts can.

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

Edit: spelling.