[UNITED STATES] Apple has requested a federal appeals court to temporarily halt key provisions of a U.S. judge’s ruling, which requires the tech giant to immediately open its profitable App Store to more competition.
The legal clash between Apple and Epic Games has significant ramifications for the wider tech sector, where the practices surrounding app stores and their associated fees are facing increasing scrutiny from both regulators and developers. Companies such as Spotify and Match Group have voiced concerns over Apple’s commission structure, which ranges from 15% to 30%, arguing that it limits competition and drives up prices for consumers. The outcome of this case could establish a precedent for regulating other platforms, including Google’s Play Store, in the future.
In a filing submitted Wednesday to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco, Apple argued that it would face irreparable harm if the court does not pause the April 30 order while the company’s legal challenge is ongoing.
Apple is contesting a ruling that found the company in contempt of a previous court order related to a 2020 antitrust lawsuit filed by Epic Games, the maker of the popular online game Fortnite.
The dispute began when Epic Games deliberately violated Apple’s App Store policies in 2020 by introducing a direct payment system within Fortnite to bypass Apple’s commission fees. Apple swiftly removed Fortnite from the App Store, leading to Epic’s lawsuit and a high-profile public relations campaign that framed the battle as one for fair competition. Since then, the case has become central to global discussions about Big Tech’s dominance and antitrust enforcement.
In its recent filing, Apple argued that the new ruling would interfere with its ability to "exercise control over core aspects of its business operations."
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers had ordered Apple to discontinue several practices that she determined were aimed at circumventing the previous injunction. Apple’s filing highlighted two of these measures, including the court’s ban on a new 27% fee that Apple imposed on app developers when users make purchases outside of the App Store.
Legal experts note that Apple’s 27% fee—just shy of its standard 30% cut—has been criticized as a workaround to maintain revenue while nominally complying with the injunction. Critics argue that the fee undermines the intent of the court’s order, as it discourages developers from seeking alternative payment options. This approach has been compared to similar tactics used by other tech giants facing regulatory pressure, such as Meta’s adjustments to ad pricing in response to privacy reforms.
In its filing, Apple contended that a federal court cannot "force Apple to permanently give away free access to its products and services." Apple is also challenging part of the judge’s order that prohibits the company from restricting where developers can place links to external payment options outside the app. Epic Games did not respond to a request for comment.
The ongoing legal battle coincides with increased regulatory scrutiny of Apple on a global scale. The European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), which came into force earlier this year, mandates that Apple allow third-party app stores and payment systems in the EU—a change the company has reluctantly implemented. Additionally, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a broad antitrust lawsuit against Apple in March, accusing the company of monopolizing the smartphone market. These parallel legal actions indicate growing pressure on Apple’s tightly controlled ecosystem from multiple fronts.
In the original lawsuit, Epic Games sued Apple to challenge its control over in-app transactions and the distribution of apps on its iOS platform. Apple was found to have willfully violated a 2021 injunction intended to give developers greater freedom to direct consumers toward potentially cheaper non-Apple payment options, according to Gonzalez Rogers’ ruling.
"Apple sought to preserve a revenue stream worth billions in direct defiance of this court’s injunction," Gonzalez Rogers wrote. She also stated that Apple had misled the court about its efforts to comply with the injunction and referred the company, along with one of its executives, to federal prosecutors for a potential criminal contempt investigation.
WhatsApp
Instagram
Threads
