Thread by @MaxKennerly

This is generally correct—it's quite unlikely Cravath would sign up to pursue a frivolous antitrust claim—but there is only so much that we can infer from their involvement. There's three main issues here: frivolity, conflicts, and the business side of things. /1

We can infer that Cravath believes Epic / Fortnite's claims have merit under current law *or* that there's a good faith argument for changing current law. Frivolous claims are prohibited, but a lawyer can bring a claim they don't think will win so long as it's in good faith. /2

The conflict issue gets complicated. Cravath can't represent directly adverse clients (duh), but can they take a position on behalf of one client that conflicts, in a general sense, with those of other clients? The answer is "it depends." /3 See: americanbar.org/news/abanews/p…

But as a practical matter, might a firm like Cravath take a position that could be perceived as disloyal to other clients? Well, yeah. 10 years ago they were accused of violating the "hot potato rule" (I swear I didn't make that up) in a hostile merger. /4 litigationandtrial.com/2010/02/articl…

Are monopolistic companies less likely to hire Cravath due to its plaintiff-side work for Fortnite? Maybe, but let me tell you a little secret: no corporate executive ever got blamed for throwing money at a white-shoe law firm, even if it all blew up. They'll keep doing it. /5

So, we can view Cravath's representation of Fortnite as a sign the firm believes its claims against Apple have merit, but we can't infer much more than that. Unless they're on a pure contingent fee, Cravath isn't really sticking its neck out here.

/end