technology lawyer

Bespoke end user licence agreements for the iStore

HomeBlogTechnology lawBespoke end user licence agreements for the iStore

by

reviewed by

Malcolm Burrows

When Software Developers (Developers) or their clients launch a new application (App) in the iStore, the default terms and conditions are Apple’s standard End User Licence Agreement (EULA).  However, a number of situations arise where it may be in the best interests of the owner of the App to provide their own EULA in place of the default one.  

Why would you need to deviate from the standard EULA?

Apple’s EULA deals with most of the usual licensing issues, however it may not align perfectly with Australian law.  For example, regardless of the customer (End User) agreeing to the jurisdiction of the Courts of California and the law of the United States, various terms will apply including the statutory guarantees as provided in schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth).  Further to this, because of the evolution of the case law in the area of unfair contract terms, it’s possible that some of the terms and conditions in the default EULA will become “unfair” and unenforceable by default.

Apple requirements for bespoke EULA’s

Prior to inclusion of the App in the iStore, Apple has provided a guide for Developers who intend to supply their own EULA with an App.  In short, the guide describes the minimum requirements which the bespoke EULA must meet:

  • the EULA should acknowledge that parties to the agreement are the Developer and the End User and not Apple;
  • the Developer is solely responsible for the App;
  • the EULA must not conflict (be less restrictive) that the terms and conditions of the iStore;
  • the scope fo the EULA is to be limited to a non-transferrable licence to use the App on the device which it is downloaded;
  • the Developer is solely responsible for support;
  • the parties must acknowledge that Apple is not responsible for supporting the App;
  • the Developer must be responsible for product warranties;
  • should the App fail, Apple will refund the purchase price of the App and thereafter Apple will have no further responsibility;
  • the EULA must not attempt to limit the Developers liability over and what is allowable under statute;
  • in the event of any claimed intellectual property infringement, the Developer must be responsible for investigating the defending the matter and not Apple;
  • the Developer must warrant that they are outside of the United States and in particular that they are not in a country which is “embargoed by the United States” or is deemed to be a “terrorist supporting country”;
  • the contact details of the Developer and customer service information in the event that the end user needs to contact the developer;
  • the EULA must provide that the Apple is a third party beneficiary to the EULA and agree that Apple and any of its subsidiaries may enforce the terms of against any end user.

In short, there is quite a few issues to consider when drafting bespoke EULA’s to comply with Apple’s requirements.  The complete guide is available  on the Apple website.

Ensuring that the terms and conditions are legally binding

The usual rules of bringing the EULA to the attention of end users apply in this instance.  The Developer must do all that is reasonably possible to bring the EULA to the attention of the end user.  See our article: “Are your website terms and conditions binding?”

Further information

If you would like to discuss having a lawyer draft a bespoke EULA that complies with the rules for the iStore, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:

Doyles Recommended TMT Lawyer 2024

Related insights about technology law

  • Federal parliament passes cyber security laws

    Federal parliament passes cyber security laws

    On 25 November 2024, the Australian Parliament passed a suite of legislation, collectively referred to by the Australian Government as the Cyber Security Legislative Package 2024.  The purported impetus for this legislation was a series of high-profile data breaches in 2022 and 2023.

    Read more …

  • Domain name disputes – a summary of the process

    Domain name disputes – a summary of the process

    A domain name is a string of text that maps to an alphanumeric IP address, enabling users to access websites through client-side software.[1]  Domains can be valuable business assets, and they frequently become the subject of disputes regarding the legitimacy of their registration among organisations with competing rights.

    Read more …

  • New OAIC guidance on Artificial Intelligence

    New OAIC guidance on Artificial Intelligence

    On 21 October 2024, the Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC) published two (2) new guides on artificial intelligence (AI), purportedly in effort to make privacy compliance easier for business.

    Read more …

  • Artificial Intelligence defined – why no uniform approach?

    Artificial Intelligence defined – why no uniform approach?

    Artificial Intelligence (AI) is commonly thought of as the capacity of computer systems to execute tasks that usually need human intelligence, such as learning, reasoning, and making decisions.[1]  It covers a range of specialised fields, each focusing on different functions.  For example, machine learning allows computers to learn from data, computer vision enables them to…

    Read more …

  • New USPTO guidelines on AI assisted inventions

    New USPTO guidelines on AI assisted inventions

    In response to the Biden administration’s Executive Order on the Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence on 30 October 2023, which outlined policies and principles to promote responsible Artificial Intelligence innovation and competition, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued inventorship guidance for artificial intelligence (AI) assisted inventions.  These…

    Read more …

  • Software developer obtains Court order – names behind IP addresses

    Software developer obtains Court order – names behind IP addresses

    Justice Burley of the Federal Court of Australia in the case of Siemens Industry Software Inc v Telstra Corporation Limited [2020] FCA 901 ordered that Telstra, within fourteen (14) days, provide to Siemens all documents in its control relating to the identity of certain Telstra Account holders.  Those account holders were suspected by Siemens of…

    Read more …

  • The Digital ID Bill 2023 (Cth)

    The Digital ID Bill 2023 (Cth)

    On 30 November 2023, the Digital ID Bill 2023 (Cth) and the Digital ID (Transitional and Consequential Provisions) Bill 2023 (Digital ID Bills) were introduced in the Australian Senate.  Digital IDs are designed to provide individuals with a convenient way to verify their identity when completing certain online transactions and dealing with government and certain…

    Read more …

  • What are adequate cyber security measures?

    What are adequate cyber security measures?

    The adequacy of cyber security measures was considered in the case of Australian Securities and Investments Commission v RI Advice Group Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 496 (ASIC v Ri Advice Group).  One of the issues raised was whether the respondent had adequate cyber security and cyber resilience in place across its network of financial advisors. …

    Read more …

  • National Classification Scheme – proposed federal reforms

    National Classification Scheme – proposed federal reforms

    Albanese Government announces intention to reform National Classification Scheme, proposing R18+ for games simulating gambling and M for computer games with paid loot boxes/in-game purchases linked to chance. Learn more about proposed reforms and if simulated gambling needs to be addressed.

    Read more …

Send this to a friend