The Fortnite Apple lawsuit began in August 2020 when Epic Games deliberately broke App Store rules to challenge Apple’s 30 percent commission, and after five years of litigation it has produced a mixed result: Epic lost its central antitrust claim, but won a court order forcing Apple to let developers steer users to outside payment options — an order Apple was later held in contempt for evading. As of May 2026, Fortnite is back on the U.S. App Store, developers can include external payment links without paying Apple a commission on those purchases, and Apple is asking the Supreme Court to review the contempt ruling.
How the Fight Started
On August 13, 2020, Epic pushed an update to Fortnite on iOS that let players buy the game’s virtual currency directly from Epic at a 20 percent discount, skipping Apple’s in-app purchase system. Apple pulled Fortnite from the App Store within hours for violating its guidelines. Epic had a lawsuit ready to file in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and a parody video, “Nineteen Eighty-Fortnite,” ready to run inside the game.1CNBC. Apple Kicks Fortnite Out of App Store for Challenging Payment Rules2BBC News. Fortnite: Apple and Google Remove Game Over Direct Payment Feature
Epic wasn’t asking for money. It wanted an injunction: a court order forcing Apple to allow competing payment systems on iOS. Apple’s position was that Epic had updated Fortnite with the “express intent of violating the App Store guidelines regarding in-app payments” and that the same rules applied to every developer.3TechCrunch. Fortnite App Store Removed Apple
The 2021 Ruling: A Split Decision
U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers held a 16-day bench trial in May 2021 and issued a 185-page opinion on September 10, 2021. The ruling gave both sides reasons to appeal.4NPR. Apple Fortnite Epic Games Ruling Explained
Epic lost on the big antitrust question. The court defined the relevant market as “digital mobile gaming transactions,” a roughly $100 billion sector where Apple held over 55 percent. That share wasn’t enough to prove an illegal monopoly. As the judge put it, “success is not illegal.” Epic hadn’t shown barriers to entry or conduct that reduced output or innovation.5Justia. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 21-16506
Epic won on one narrower point, and it turned out to matter. Apple’s anti-steering rule, which barred developers from even telling users about cheaper payment options outside the app, violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. The judge wrote that the rule “hide[s] critical information from consumers and illegally stifle[s] consumer choice” and issued a nationwide injunction requiring Apple to let developers link to outside payment methods.6Court Document. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., Order
Epic also lost on breach of contract. By sneaking the direct payment option into Fortnite, it had violated its developer agreement. The court ordered Epic to pay Apple roughly $3.6 million — 30 percent of the revenue it had collected while bypassing the App Store.4NPR. Apple Fortnite Epic Games Ruling Explained
The Appeals
Both sides appealed. On April 24, 2023, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the outcome. Epic still couldn’t prove its antitrust claims under the Sherman Act, and the anti-steering injunction still stood. The one adjustment favored Apple: the appeals court found the trial court should have awarded Apple attorney fees under an indemnification clause in the developer agreement, and sent that issue back down.5Justia. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple, Inc., No. 21-16506
Both parties then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court. On January 16, 2024, the Court denied both petitions, leaving the Ninth Circuit’s decision intact and the anti-steering injunction in force.7Supreme Court of the United States. Docket No. 23-337
Apple’s Compliance Scheme and the 2025 Contempt Finding
Apple’s response to the injunction became the second act of the case. Rather than simply letting developers point users to cheaper payment options, Apple built a compliance program that charged a 27 percent commission on purchases made through external links — three percentage points below its standard fee. It also restricted links to a single static URL and required apps to display full-screen “scare screens” warning users about buying outside the App Store.8MacRumors. Apple App Store Anti-Steering Injunction Violation9The Verge. Apple Failed Compliance Court Ruling Breakdown
On April 30, 2025, Judge Gonzalez Rogers issued an 80-page ruling finding Apple in willful violation of the injunction. She wrote that Apple had chosen “the most anticompetitive option” at every step and that internal business documents contradicted the company’s sworn testimony.10CBS News. Apple Violated Injunction Antitrust Case Judge Finds Apple Vice President of Finance Alex Roman had testified that the 27 percent commission was decided in January 2024; internal documents showed it was set in July 2023. The judge called Roman’s testimony “replete with misdirection and outright lies” and said Apple and its lawyers had not corrected the false statements.11The Verge. Apple Executive Lied Under Oath Epic Alex Roman
The sanctions were sweeping. The judge referred Apple and Roman to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California for possible criminal contempt proceedings. She ordered Apple to stop charging any commission on purchases made outside the App Store, stop restricting how developers design or place payment links, stop using scare screens, and stop retaliating against developers who use external payment systems. Apple was also ordered to pay Epic’s attorney fees through May 2025. The judge denied Apple’s request for a pause.12NBC News. US Judge Rules Apple Violated Order to Reform App Store
Fortnite Returns to the App Store
On May 19, 2025, Judge Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to reinstate Fortnite or show a legal basis for keeping it off the store. The next day the game was back in the U.S. App Store for the first time since August 2020. Apple and Epic issued a joint statement confirming they had resolved the dispute over reinstatement. Fortnite is available for download on iOS in the United States; it remains unavailable in Australia.13The New York Times. Apple Epic Fortnite iOS App Store14Epic Games. How Do I Install Fortnite on iOS or iPadOS
Where the Case Stands in 2026
Apple appealed the contempt ruling. On December 11, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the core finding: Apple had violated the injunction in bad faith by building a compliance program designed to “nullif[y] the revenue impact” of the court’s order. The 27 percent commission had a “prohibitive effect,” and the design restrictions on payment links violated both the letter and the spirit of the injunction.15Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 25-2935
The appeals court did trim one piece of the remedy. It ruled that a blanket prohibition on any commission for linked-out purchases went too far as a contempt sanction, and sent that question back to Judge Gonzalez Rogers to determine what commission rate, if any, Apple may lawfully charge. The panel also rejected Apple’s request to reassign the case to a different judge.16Bloomberg. Apple Loses Appeals Court Ruling in App Store Fight With Epic
In April 2026, the Ninth Circuit lifted a temporary stay on its mandate, saying Apple had “not raised a substantial question for review” and had “failed to show good cause” for further delay.17TechCrunch. Apple Epic Games App Store Fees Pause Changes Supreme Court Apple then filed an emergency application at the Supreme Court on May 4, 2026, asking Justice Elena Kagan to pause the mandate. She denied the request two days later without referring it to the full Court.18SCOTUSblog. Court Turns Down Apple’s Request to Pause Order Holding It in Contempt
Apple has also filed a petition asking the Supreme Court to review the Ninth Circuit’s contempt decision and clarify the standards for civil contempt sanctions.19Law360. Apple Wants Justices to Review Epic Games Contempt Order Until the district court sets a permanent framework, U.S. developers can include links to external payment options inside their iOS apps without paying Apple a commission on those transactions.
How This Differs From the Google Case
Epic filed a parallel lawsuit against Google on the same day in 2020, and the results have been very different. On December 11, 2023, a jury unanimously found that Google illegally monopolized both Android app distribution and in-app billing — the sweeping antitrust win Epic did not get against Apple. The district court imposed a three-year injunction in October 2024, and the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed both the verdict and the injunction on July 31, 2025.20Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLC, et al., No. 24-6256
The appeals court explained the difference: Android is an open system licensed to third-party manufacturers, while iOS is a closed ecosystem. Those different “commercial realities” let Epic define the market differently and prove harm it couldn’t demonstrate against Apple. So if you’ve read that Epic “beat” the app-store gatekeepers, that was Google. Against Apple, Epic lost the antitrust case and won only the narrower anti-steering ruling.20Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Epic Games, Inc. v. Google LLC, et al., No. 24-6256
What It Means Now
For iPhone users in the United States, the practical change is visible inside apps: developers can now show a link to their own website to complete a purchase, often at a lower price than the App Store version, without the scare screen Apple used to require. Fortnite is downloadable again. Apple still runs the App Store, still reviews apps, and still charges its standard commission on purchases made through Apple’s in-app purchase system — the antitrust ruling did not change any of that.
What remains open is how much, if anything, Apple can charge on purchases made through external links. Judge Gonzalez Rogers will decide that on remand, weighing Apple’s costs in facilitating those transactions and the value of its intellectual property. Apple’s Supreme Court petition on the contempt ruling is pending. Until those pieces are resolved, the operational rule is the one the district court imposed in April 2025 and the Ninth Circuit largely upheld in December: no commission, no design restrictions, no scare screens on links out.