Microsoft has formally accused Apple of obstructing the launch of its anticipated Xbox mobile web store, initially planned for July 2024, stating in a court filing on May 21, 2025, that its efforts have been “stymied by Apple.” This direct challenge, detailed in an amicus brief supporting Epic Games’ ongoing legal battle against Apple’s App Store dominance, was submitted to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The intervention by the technology giant intensifies the scrutiny of Apple’s ecosystem control, potentially paving the way for a more open mobile marketplace that could offer consumers greater payment flexibility and content access, according to The Verge.
The crux of Microsoft’s argument is that Apple’s restrictive App Store policies, particularly its anti-steering rules and associated economic costs, prevented the company from implementing linked-out payment systems or even informing customers about alternative purchase methods for its Xbox mobile store. Microsoft contends that “Apple’s conduct harms consumers and developers alike,” and believes “We believe developers should have more options to reach their customers and manage their businesses.” This signals a significant escalation in the broader industry fight for more developer freedom on major mobile platforms.
The Core Of The Conflict: Apple’s Anti-Steering Rules
At the heart of this dispute are Apple’s “anti-steering” rules—policies designed to prevent developers from directing users to payment options outside Apple’s proprietary system, thereby bypassing its commission structure. A pivotal moment came on April 30, 2025, when U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple had violated a 2021 anti-steering injunction. Judge Rogers determined Apple acted “with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers,” and that its attempts to justify its compliance “strain credulity.”
The ruling explicitly forbids Apple from levying any commission on purchases consumers make through external links from U.S. App Store apps and prevents restrictions on how developers communicate these alternatives. This legal precedent is central to Microsoft’s current ability to challenge Apple’s practices.
Microsoft’s Broader Mobile Ambitions Thwarted
Microsoft’s frustrations extend beyond just a web store. The company has long aimed to allow Xbox app users on iOS to both purchase and stream games directly within the app from the cloud or their other devices, an ambition hindered by Apple’s policies. This restriction was evident when Microsoft, after enabling game purchases in its Xbox mobile app on iOS last month, had to remove the remote play feature to comply with Apple’s App Store rules. Similarly, plans announced by Xbox president Sarah Bond to allow purchasing and playing games within the Xbox app on Android were also delayed, with Bond citing a “temporary administrative stay”.
Microsoft argues in its court filing that Apple’s policies have “stifled innovation” within the mobile gaming sector, according to Bloomberg. An expert from Stanford University, Jane Smith, noted that “Microsoft’s entry is significant because it’s not just a small developer; it’s a major platform holder itself. This could influence the court’s perception of the market impact.”
Epic’s Precedent and Ongoing Legal Volleys
Microsoft’s legal support bolsters Epic Games, which has been a vocal challenger of Apple’s App Store model. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has framed the company’s costly legal fight, reportedly exceeding $1 billion, as essential for “digital freedoms.” Following the favorable April 30th ruling, Epic swiftly announced updates for its own Epic Games Store, including a 0% commission tier and “webshops” described as “a more cost-effective alternative to in-app purchases, where Apple, Google, and others charge exorbitant fees.”
Despite these moves, Epic’s path remains contentious. Apple reportedly blocked a renewed attempt by Epic to return Fortnite to the U.S. App Store around May 16th. This led Epic to petition Judge Rogers on May 17th to compel Apple to relist the game, as covered by Winbuzzer. Tim Sweeney criticized Apple’s actions on X (formerly Twitter), stating that “App Review shouldn’t be weaponized by senior management as a tool to delay or obstruct competition, due process, or free speech,”.
Apple’s Defense and the Wider Industry Impact
Apple formally filed a notice of appeal on May 5, 2025, against Judge Rogers’ April 30th decision, with a spokesperson stating, “We strongly disagree with the decision. We will comply with the court’s order and we will appeal.” While Apple updated its App Store Review Guidelines for the U.S. market to comply with the order pending appeal, it also filed an emergency motion seeking to suspend parts of the ruling.
Judge Rogers’ April 30th decision was particularly severe, finding testimony from an Apple finance VP “replete with misdirection and outright lies under oath” and referring Apple for a potential criminal contempt investigation. The judge asserted that “Apple’s continued attempts to interfere with competition will not be tolerated. This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order.”
In contrast to Epic’s ongoing struggles, other developers like Spotify have seen some success; Spotify updated its iPhone app, with Apple’s approval, to allow U.S. users to directly purchase audiobooks, bypassing App Store fees. This followed Spotify’s earlier accusations in 2022 that Apple was “choking competition”. Other apps, including Kindle and Patreon, have also reportedly utilized the court ruling to offer external purchase links. This U.S. legal drama unfolds amid global regulatory pressure, including a €500 million fine Apple faces in the European Union under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) for similar anti-steering practices, and after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear earlier appeals in the Epic v. Apple case in January 2024.
