Apple is taking its fight over App Store control to a higher court, filing a notice of appeal today with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The move challenges a blistering April 30th decision by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the long-running legal battle with Epic Games. That ruling not only barred Apple from collecting commissions on many external app purchases in the US but also included extraordinary judicial rebukes, including a rare referral for a potential criminal contempt investigation.
Judge’s Harsh Rebuke and Contempt Referral
The dispute centers on Apple’s “anti-steering” rules – policies designed to prevent developers from directing users to payment options outside Apple’s own system, thereby bypassing its commission structure. Epic Games successfully argued in a motion filed in March that Apple’s implementation violated a 2021 injunction stemming from California’s Unfair Competition Law. In her April 30th order (targeting Docket Entry 1508), Judge Rogers found Apple had “willfully chose not to comply” with the earlier mandate.
She determined Apple acted “with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers,” stated its compliance arguments “strain credulity,” and added, “That it thought this court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation.”
The ruling specifically forbids Apple from imposing any fee or commission on purchases consumers make through external links provided by developers in the US App Store and prevents Apple from restricting how developers display or communicate these links. This complex legal fight has seen previous appeals, identified in court documents under case numbers 21-16506 and 21-16695, underscoring its protracted nature.
Beyond the financial implications, Judge Rogers’ decision was notable for its sharp tone and actions. She found testimony from Apple Vice President of Finance, Alex Roman, “not credible” and “replete with misdirection and outright lies under oath.” In a move legal observers described as unusual for such cases, the judge referred Apple to federal prosecutors for a potential criminal contempt investigation. Furthermore, Apple was sanctioned for what the judge called the “misuse of attorney-client privilege designations to delay proceedings.”
Apple’s Compliance and Continued Opposition
Before the April 30th ruling, Apple had attempted to satisfy the original 2021 injunction by allowing developers a single external link, but controversially planned to charge a 12 to 27 percent commission on purchases made via that link within seven days – a system requiring developers to use Apple’s “External Link Account entitlement.”
Court documents revealed internal disagreement over this plan, with Apple Fellow Phil Schiller testifying he had initially opposed the fee structure, fearing it would create an “antagonistic relationship” with developers. Judge Rogers ultimately rejected this approach.
Following the harsh ruling, Apple did move to comply with the stricter terms, updating its App Store Review Guidelines on May 1st for the US market. These changes explicitly permit external links without commission and clarify the entitlement system isn’t needed for this purpose in the US. Music streaming service Spotify acted immediately, submitting an updated app utilizing the new freedom, which Apple approved on May 2nd. However, Apple made its disagreement clear early on. “We strongly disagree with the decision. We will comply with the court’s order and we will appeal,” an Apple spokesperson stated on May 1st, culminating in today’s formal appeal filing.
Competitive Fallout and Broader Context
The ruling Apple now contests has already sent ripples through the competitive environment. Epic Games, Apple’s primary antagonist in this saga, announced new Epic Games Store terms on May 1st, including a 0% commission tier starting in June 2025 and new “webshops,” explicitly crediting “new legal rulings” for allowing developers to link to these alternatives from within iOS games in the US and EU.
Following Apple’s appeal notice today, Epic revealed plans to use its established EU developer entity to launch its store and Fortnite on iOS in the US, directly challenging Apple’s position. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney had previously offered a “peace proposal,” suggesting Fortnite could return globally if Apple adopted the court’s “friction-free, Apple-tax-free framework worldwide.”
This US legal drama unfolds against a backdrop of international regulatory pressure; the European Commission hit Apple with a €500 million fine on April 23rd under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) – a sweeping EU regulation targeting large tech platforms – for similar anti-steering violations. The current conflict over the injunction’s scope follows the US Supreme Court’s decision in January not to hear earlier appeals from either Apple or Epic on the original 2021 trial verdict, leaving the California anti-steering injunction intact.
