I agree, contracts are legally binding. However, there are judgments against contracts in civil court cases merely because the contract is ludicrous. E.g. Apple approved the application, then breached the values of the contract (despite it not being written in the contract) by rejecting the application although the application did not drastically change during it's life-cycle. (The argument may fall better under lacking competency to manage the App Store.) With this FCC ruling, I think an application developer would be insane not to sue for breach of contract by Apple.
Or to put it more succinctly: Apple cannot retain the 30% if it was the cause of removal for an otherwise rules-abiding application. It's known as the doctrine of unclean hands (or possibly may even just be a plain ol' breach of contract).
Does anyone actually document Apple keeping 30%? It is my understanding that this is from a 3rd party interpretation of the contract and that Apple only retrieves the 70% they paid the developers.
If anyone takes this one to court, I'm sure Apple's legal team will try to paint that 30% they take as just a 'fee' to cover the infrastructure costs and that the infrastructure was still used to make the sale even when the customer is asking for a refund. (Not that I agree with what they are doing)
