The Apple App Store lawsuit is Epic Games v. Apple, an antitrust case Epic filed in August 2020 that has forced Apple to let iOS developers point users to cheaper payment options outside the App Store. Epic lost most of its claims, but the one it won produced an injunction against Apple’s “anti-steering” rules. Apple’s attempts to work around that injunction led to a civil contempt finding in April 2025, a Ninth Circuit ruling affirming that contempt in December 2025, and a Supreme Court petition that remains pending as of mid-2026.1SCOTUSblog. Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc.
How the Case Started
On August 13, 2020, Epic Games added a direct payment option inside the iOS version of Fortnite, offering players a 20% discount on virtual currency and bypassing Apple’s in-app purchase system. Apple pulled Fortnite from the App Store that same day. Epic then sued in the Northern District of California, having planned the confrontation as a direct challenge to Apple’s control over iOS apps and payments.2Justia Law. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Original Complaint
Epic alleged that Apple maintained illegal monopolies in two markets: distribution of iOS apps and in-app payment processing on iOS. It brought claims under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, the California Cartwright Act, and the California Unfair Competition Law. The targets were two Apple rules: the requirement that iOS apps be distributed only through the App Store, and the mandate that developers use Apple’s in-app purchase system, which took a 30% commission.2Justia Law. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Original Complaint
Apple argued the relevant market was all digital video game transactions, not iOS alone, and that its control over the ecosystem was justified by privacy, security, and intellectual property concerns. It also counterclaimed for breach of contract based on Epic’s deliberate rule-breaking.3Regmedia. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., District Court Opinion
What the 2021 Ruling Actually Did
After a three-week bench trial, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a 185-page decision in September 2021. She defined the relevant market as “digital mobile gaming transactions” and found Apple did not have monopoly power in that market, noting Apple’s share of roughly 52% to 57% and pressure from competing platforms and cloud gaming services.4Stratechery. The Apple v. Epic Decision
Epic lost nine of its ten claims. It won one: Apple’s “anti-steering” rules, which stopped developers from telling users they could buy the same content more cheaply on a website, violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. Judge Gonzalez Rogers found those provisions “hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice” and issued a permanent injunction barring Apple from enforcing them. Developers had to be allowed to include external links and calls to action pointing users to other ways to pay.4Stratechery. The Apple v. Epic Decision
Epic was also found to have breached its contract with Apple and ordered to pay Apple about $3.6 million, representing 30% of roughly $12 million it had collected through its direct payment workaround.5NPR. Apple Fortnite Epic Games Ruling Explained
On April 24, 2023, the Ninth Circuit largely affirmed the decision, including the anti-steering injunction. The Supreme Court declined to block it, and the injunction took effect on January 16, 2024.6A&O Shearman. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Ninth Circuit Decision Summary
Apple’s Compliance Plan and the Contempt Finding
Apple’s response to the injunction became the fight that mattered. The company allowed external payment links but attached conditions:
- A 27% commission on purchases made through those links, only three points below the standard App Store rate.
- A mandatory “scare screen” warning users that the outside payment site might not be secure.
- Approved text templates only, a plain button style with no background colors, and placement on just one page inside the app.7Superwall. Apple Allows External Payment Links in the App Store
On April 30, 2025, Judge Gonzalez Rogers held Apple in civil contempt. She wrote that “Apple sought to maintain a revenue stream worth billions in direct defiance of this court’s injunction” and ordered the company to stop collecting commissions on external-link purchases and to stop restricting how developers designed or worded those links.8The New York Times. Apple Epic App Store Ruling
The contempt order went further. The judge found that Apple VP of Finance Alex Roman had “outright lied” under oath about when and why Apple settled on the 27% figure, and that Apple’s lawyers had failed to correct the false testimony. She referred Apple and Roman to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California to consider criminal contempt proceedings, while noting she “took no view on whether a criminal case should be opened.”9CNBC. Court Finds Apple Executive Lied Under Oath10NBC News. US Judge Rules Apple Violated Order to Reform App Store Public reporting has not indicated whether that referral has produced an investigation or a declination.
The December 2025 Ninth Circuit Ruling
Apple appealed the contempt order. On December 11, 2025, a Ninth Circuit panel of Circuit Judges Sidney Thomas and Milan Smith (who wrote the opinion), and Chief District Judge Michael McShane, affirmed the contempt finding. The panel agreed that the 27% commission was “prohibitive,” meaning no rational developer would use external links at that rate, and that Apple’s design restrictions violated the injunction.11U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 25-2935
The panel did trim one part of the sanction. A permanent zero-commission requirement was not “an appropriately cabined civil contempt sanction,” the court held, and looked more like punishment than a civil remedy. The commission question was sent back to Judge Gonzalez Rogers to set a “reasonable, non-prohibitive” rate based on Apple’s actual costs in coordinating external links and the value of its intellectual property. Apple was also allowed to impose some design restrictions, provided developers could match the formatting Apple uses for its own purchase buttons.12Courthouse News Service. Ninth Circuit Confirms Contempt Finding Against Apple in Epic Games Battle11U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 25-2935
The Supreme Court Petition
Apple went to the Supreme Court. On May 4, 2026, it filed an emergency application asking Justice Elena Kagan to pause the Ninth Circuit’s mandate. Two days later she denied the request without referring it to the full court, which SCOTUSblog read as a signal that “it was not a close call.”13SCOTUSblog. Court Turns Down Apple’s Request to Pause Order Holding It in Contempt
Apple filed a formal cert petition on May 21, 2026. It raises two questions. The first is the standard for civil contempt: whether a party can be held in contempt for conduct that violates the “spirit” of an injunction, or only conduct the order “clearly and unambiguously” forbids. The second, citing the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, asks whether the injunction is impermissibly broad because it benefits every developer worldwide when Epic is the only plaintiff.14MacRumors. Apple Supreme Court Epic Games Case
The petition was distributed for the court’s conference on June 25, 2026. The justices had not acted on it as of that date.1SCOTUSblog. Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc. While the remand proceedings before Judge Gonzalez Rogers on the “reasonable” commission rate remain open, Apple is charging zero commission on purchases made through external links in U.S. apps.15NeonPay. Apple App Store Alternative Payment Fees: What Developers Pay in 2026
What Developers Can Do Now
The current framework opens up real options on the U.S. iOS and iPadOS App Store. Developers can include buttons, external links, and other calls to action directing users to web-based checkouts without a special entitlement. They can tell users prices may differ outside the app, and they can offer in-app purchase and external payment side by side.15NeonPay. Apple App Store Alternative Payment Fees: What Developers Pay in 2026
Some limits survive. Under the December 2025 ruling, Apple may prevent external payment links from appearing more prominent than its own in-app purchase buttons, may restrict font size and placement to match its own formatting, and may require a neutral disclosure that the user is being sent to a third-party site. The old “scare screen” warnings were banned.15NeonPay. Apple App Store Alternative Payment Fees: What Developers Pay in 2026 As of mid-2026, Apple has not published updated guidelines showing how it will apply those design restrictions.
Apple’s standard commission structure otherwise remains in place. In-app purchases are subject to a 30% commission, with a 15% rate for developers in the App Store Small Business Program earning no more than $1 million in annual proceeds.16Apple Developer. App Store Small Business Program
Related Legal Pressure on Apple
The Epic case is not the only front. On May 2, 2025, days after the contempt ruling, Hagens Berman filed a proposed class action on behalf of up to 100,000 iOS developers, Pure Sweat Basketball Inc. v. Apple Inc. (No. 4:25-cv-03858), seeking the return of commissions Apple collected during the period of noncompliance. The complaint estimates damages in the “hundreds of millions or even billions” of dollars. The proposed class covers any developer who sold in-app digital products through the App Store after January 16, 2024. Judge Gonzalez Rogers, who also handles the Epic case, granted Apple’s requested stay in February 2026, and an initial case management conference is set for July 13, 2026.17Reuters. Apple Hit With App Developer Class Action After US Judge’s Contempt Ruling18CourtListener. Pure Sweat Basketball, Inc. v. Apple Inc., Docket
Separately, on March 21, 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice and multiple state attorneys general sued Apple under Section 2 of the Sherman Act, alleging monopolization of the smartphone market. That case reaches beyond the App Store to cross-platform messaging, non-Apple smartwatch functionality, and third-party access to tap-to-pay technology. A federal judge denied Apple’s motion to dismiss in June 2025, and the case is moving toward discovery and trial.19U.S. Department of Justice. US and Plaintiff States v. Apple Inc.20Mintz. Judge Allows Justice Department’s iPhone Monopolization Suit
One boundary worth noting: the changes described here apply to the U.S. App Store. In Europe, Apple operates under the Digital Markets Act, which since 2022 has required it to permit third-party app marketplaces and sideloading on iOS, allow alternative payment processors, and reduce commissions to as low as 13% for qualifying subscriptions. The European Commission fined Apple 500 million euros for noncompliance in May 2025. The U.S. rulings give developers a workaround on payments; they do not open iOS to rival app stores the way the DMA does.21Apple Developer. DMA and Apps in the EU22ProMarket. Does the Case of Apple’s App Store Indicate It’s Time for an American Digital Markets Act