Court decision impedes Apple from enforcing certain fees on its App Store for iPhones
Updated Article:
Hey there, pals! Let's dive into a juicy tech drama that's been heating up recently. Apple's lengthy legal wrangle with video game champ Epic Games has taken another turn, sparking excitement for app developers and causing ripples in the tech world.
Here's the lowdown:
The Legal Battle:
Apple has requested a pause on an April 30 order, but a three-judge appeals panel has refused, dealing a potential blow to Apple's revenue. This move threatens to divert billions away from the tech giant while it tries to overturn an order reining in its commissions from e-commerce within iPhone apps.
The latest twist in this epic saga, initiated almost five years ago, stems from Epic Games' claim that Apple let its once-exclusive payment system within the iPhone app store morph into a price-gouging monopoly. This antitrust case focused primarily on the 15% to 30% commissions Apple charges on a chunk of commerce within iPhone apps.
A Silicon Valley Showdown:
After losing an initial 2021 ruling, Apple implemented a 12% to 27% commission on transactions directed toward external payment links. However, this move was deemed insufficient by Epic Games, leading to accusations of contempt before the court.
That's not all, folks! Apple is still fighting tooth and nail to overturn the ruling in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Yet, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez-Rogers' order blocking Apple's commissions on some in-app commerce will stay in effect, potentially leaving a dent in Apple's profits.
"The long national nightmare of the Apple tax is ended," Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney tweeted after the appeals court denied Apple's request.
Apple's Response:
In a statement, Apple expressed disappointment with the denial of its stay request and vowed to continue its appeal "to ensure the app store remains an incredible opportunity for developers and a safe and trusted experience for our users."
Liedtke pens for the Associated Press.
Enrichment Snippets:
While the battle remains active, some key developments have been made:
- Court Rulings:
- Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals: As of June 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has kept the block on Apple's commissions[3][5].
- U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers: In April 2025, Judge Rogers found Apple in contempt for willfully violating an injunction[1][5].
- Impact on Apple's Business Model:
- The ruling could have a significant impact on Apple's App Store business model, as it no longer allows Apple to charge its standard commissions on transactions when developers direct users to external websites for purchases[5].
- Developer Reactions:
- Major developers such as Amazon and Spotify have taken advantage of the changes, implementing workarounds that link directly to external sites for purchases[5].
- Settlement Rumors:
- Despite rumors of a settlement in May 2025, the legal battle remains ongoing, with disputes over Epic's attempts to list Fortnite on the App Store[1][2][4].
- Fortnite App Store Status:
- Although Epic Games had submitted Fortnite to the App Store in May 2025, delays ensued due to Apple's hesitation, but the app was eventually approved and updated for the U.S. and EU[1].
- As the legal battle between Apple and Epic Games continues, the ruling in favor of Epic Games threatens to disrupt Apple's revenue stream, particularly from the App Store, which is a significant part of their business.
- The refusal by a three-judge appeals panel to pause an April 30 order could potentially divert billions from Apple, as it pertains to the commissions from e-commerce within iPhone apps, a key aspect of their business model.
- Technology companies such as Amazon and Spotify have taken advantage of the changes in Apple's App Store business model, implementing workarounds that link directly to external sites for purchases, which could become a trend in the industry due to this legal wrangle.
- Meanwhile, California, being the epicenter of the tech industry, may see further changes in business practices as a result of this court case, potentially impacting the broader entertainment and finance sectors, especially those heavily reliant on app-based platforms.
