Court orders Apple to open App Store to competition, Epic Games wins

[Skye Jacobs]

A hot potato: A federal judge in California has delivered a decisive blow to Apple's longstanding control over its App Store, ordering the tech giant to immediately halt practices that have limited competition and maintained high commissions on app sales. This ruling concludes a five-year legal battle initiated by Epic Games, the creator of Fortnite, which challenged Apple's dominance in the digital app marketplace.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, presiding over the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, found that Apple willfully violated a previous court order designed to open the App Store to greater competition. The federal judge's ruling delivered a sharp and unmistakable rebuke to Apple, making clear her frustration with the company's repeated defiance of court orders.

Judge Rogers criticized Apple's response to her earlier injunction, which had directed the company to allow developers to steer users to external payment options, bypassing Apple's standard 30 percent commission.

Instead of complying, Apple implemented a new system that required apps using external payment links to pay a 27 percent commission.

The company also introduced pop-up warnings to discourage users from making payments outside the App Store, suggesting such transactions might not be secure. Judge Rogers wrote, "Apple aimed to sustain a revenue stream worth billions in blatant violation of this court's injunction."

We will return Fortnite to the US iOS App Store next week.

Epic puts forth a peace proposal: If Apple extends the court's friction-free, Apple-tax-free framework worldwide, we'll return Fortnite to the App Store worldwide and drop current and future litigation on the topic. https://t.co/bIRTePm0Tv

– Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic) April 30, 2025

The judge's frustration was evident. She accused Apple executives of dishonesty, specifically naming Alex Roman, Apple's Vice President of Finance, for "outright lying" to the court about when the company decided to impose the new 27 percent fee.

Judge Rogers stated that neither Apple nor its legal team corrected what she called "obvious lies," and she referred the matter to federal prosecutors to consider criminal contempt charges against both Roman and the company.

She also criticized Apple CEO Tim Cook, saying, "Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option."

The ruling prohibits Apple from collecting commissions on sales made outside the App Store and from enacting policies preventing developers from directing users to external payment methods. Apple is also forbidden from displaying messages that might dissuade users from purchasing outside its platform. Judge Rogers emphasized, "Apple will not impede competition" and that "the court will not tolerate further delays."

The outcome not only signals a major victory for Epic Games but also opens the door for sweeping changes in how developers and consumers interact with the digital marketplace.

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney welcomed the decision, stating, "There will be considerable opportunities for developers to secure better deals and for consumers to benefit as well. This is a fantastic day for everyone involved."

Apple expressed strong disagreement with the ruling. "We strongly disagree with the decision. We will comply with the court's order, and we will appeal," said Apple spokeswoman Olivia Dalton.

The legal saga began in 2020, when Epic Games accused Apple of stifling competition by forcing developers to use its payment system and taking up to a 30 percent cut of many transactions. The App Store is a major revenue source for Apple, accounting for a significant portion of its nearly $100 billion in annual services revenue.

While Apple initially avoided being labeled a monopoly, the court found it had violated California's competition laws by blocking alternative payment options for developers.

Wednesday's ruling is expected to reshape the app economy, potentially allowing developers to retain more earnings and reducing fees that have long flowed to Apple. The decision also paves the way for Fortnite's return to the iOS App Store in the United States, after being removed in 2020 when Epic enabled alternative payment methods within the game.

As the dust settles, Judge Rogers left the door open for further action, stating, "It will be up to the executive branch to determine if Apple should face consequences for its violations, in addition to any penalties aimed at preventing future misconduct."

Permalink to story:

Court orders Apple to open App Store to competition, Epic Games wins

 

[m4a4]

Good.

 

[ScottSoapbox]

"Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option."

This sums it up perfectly.

I hope they also lose their appeal.

 

[VitalyT]

Being a 3 trillion worth company, Apple sees it as a "f-k u judge" money. It will take a major anti-criminal action to make them see things differently, which I bet will never happen, the law proves to be powerless against such powerful offenders.

 

[WhiteLeaff]

People have the option of not buying Apple, I don't see judicial interference as necessary if people had some critical awareness.

 

[pnntmp]

I don't see how App Store impedes competition. Anyone can put their apps there, as long as they comply with the requirements, and compete with everyone else. For like 98% of the apps, Apple doesn't have their own app with the same functionality.
So where exactly is the problem with competition???

Using alternative payment options has absolutely nothing to do with competition - it's an attempt to use Apple's ecosystem for free. Why would Apple allow that?
Of course, I don't like the 30% cut thing, but it's the owner who sets the rules. Don't like it? OK, don't use it.

These things should be left to the market to decide, not judges. If apps on Android are cheaper, buy an Android device or sth else. If you're buying an iPhone despite the higher prices, then you think it's worth it.

 

[Zintin]

I don't see how App Store impedes competition. Anyone can put their apps there, as long as they comply with the requirements, and compete with everyone else. For like 98% of the apps, Apple doesn't have their own app with the same functionality.
So where exactly is the problem with competition???

Using alternative payment options has absolutely nothing to do with competition - it's an attempt to use Apple's ecosystem for free. Why would Apple allow that?
Of course, I don't like the 30% cut thing, but it's the owner who sets the rules. Don't like it? OK, don't use it.

These things should be left to the market to decide, not judges. If apps on Android are cheaper, buy an Android device or sth else. If you're buying an iPhone despite the higher prices, then you think it's worth it.

The whole issue is that there is no alternative (legal) to deploy an app onto Apple's iOS. Therefore it lack an avenue of choice by the users. It's a monopoly and our US government's job, which they forgot due to "donations", to limit monopolies.

 

[pnntmp]

The whole issue is that there is no alternative (legal) to deploy an app onto Apple's iOS. Therefore it lack an avenue of choice by the users. It's a monopoly and our US government's job, which they forgot due to "donations", to limit monopolies.

If any app can be deployed via AppStore, and that's 100% free, what would be the purpose of having an alternative method of deployment? Where exactly is the alleged monopoly, when any compatible app can be installed on any device?

 

[NumberNine]

I just love watching rich people fight.
Personally I think Apple should be able to do whatever they want with their entire ecosystem, which they built from the ground up, from nothing, before anyone else even had the idea, but whatever, lawyers need to eat too and Epic Games is unwilling to develop their own hardware and mobile store.

 

[m4a4]

If any app can be deployed via AppStore, and that's 100% free, what would be the purpose of having an alternative method of deployment? Where exactly is the alleged monopoly, when any compatible app can be installed on any device?

No and no.

-Not "any" app can be deployed. Apple is heavily restrictive and anti-competitive (which is why they're getting hit hard as shown in the article). Apps have been denied for even hinting that Apple is being restrictive towards an apps customers.
-You have to pay yearly for a dev account.

If you're going to talk about the topic, you should at least inform yourself enough to get the 2nd point correct lol

 

[dangh]

If any app can be deployed via AppStore, and that's 100% free, what would be the purpose of having an alternative method of deployment? Where exactly is the alleged monopoly, when any compatible app can be installed on any device?

If a company have a shop, and only this shop can be used for deploying and selling an app, and if that company can remove any app at any time, and if that company actually threaten devs of free apps to make them paid due to popularity or they remove it, it is a clear monopoly.

If devs can't select another shop there is no competition.

If devs have to pay 30 pct of their gains to apple store and no other store can provide better pricing, it is monopoly.

If developer can't use different payment options, it is a monopoly.

Example: Apple own music application. it makes X monies.
Spotify own music application. it makes Y monies.
when someone pays for Spotify on Apple device, spotify gets 0.7 Y, and apple music gets 1X+0.3 Y.
Therefore, Spotify have to compete with apple music, but in reality it actually pays their competitor. With same number of users and same subscription fee, apple music will make nearly twice as much.
Add dezeer, yt music and so on and suddenly there is no more competition at all, all the competitor pays money to apple.

 

[NoLifeDGenerate]

The whole issue is that there is no alternative (legal) to deploy an app onto Apple's iOS. Therefore it lack an avenue of choice by the users. It's a monopoly and our US government's job, which they forgot due to "donations", to limit monopolies.

There doesn't need to be. It's their hardware and their software platform. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to get an android phone instead. All this does is screw over consoles now, because Epic can use the same ruling to put their own store app on Xbox, PSN etc and make content exclusive to their own store. I can't stand that Xbox/PSN allowed all these publishers to require their own accounts on console, much less their own apps. uPlay was bad enough. It's one thing if these console companies would make it policy that everything has to be doable with only the Xobx/PSN account and everything else is optional, but they won't.

MS has owned Bethesda for like 4 years and still haven't merged Bethesda's account system with Xbox. Strangely, all the warnings on those games on the Xbox store saying they require a Bethesda account no longer state that as other company's games do. Yet, I see no indication of the account requirement having been removed from anything since the mess of complaints over the retro Doom games requiring it.

 

[AnilD]

Apple went from courageously removing headphone jacks to courageously removing court orders from its memory. This case evolved from just being about Fortnite to potentially reshaping the entire app economy. Great.

 

[MSIGamer]

I'm just glad someone is * finally * calling out all the lying and deceiving that these companies do on a continuous basis. It's become almost second nature for them, those people are completely corrupted by greed and will do anything to make themselves richer.

It's disgusting.

Sometimes lying is still punished in this world. At the very least it always comes with a karma hit. And that'll hit you anyway sooner or later.

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

There doesn't need to be. It's their hardware and their software platform. Anyone who doesn't like it is free to get an android phone instead. All this does is screw over consoles now, because Epic can use the same ruling to put their own store app on Xbox, PSN etc and make content exclusive to their own store. I can't stand that Xbox/PSN allowed all these publishers to require their own accounts on console, much less their own apps. uPlay was bad enough. It's one thing if these console companies would make it policy that everything has to be doable with only the Xobx/PSN account and everything else is optional, but they won't.

MS has owned Bethesda for like 4 years and still haven't merged Bethesda's account system with Xbox. Strangely, all the warnings on those games on the Xbox store saying they require a Bethesda account no longer state that as other company's games do. Yet, I see no indication of the account requirement having been removed from anything since the mess of complaints over the retro Doom games requiring it.

Once Apple sells a device it is not their hardware & software platform anymore. It belongs to the person who actually owns the device. Consoles too should be opened up in the same way. The idea that a device manufacturer can artificially block or prevent the actual owner of the device from doing business with another party regarding the device is both hostile to the owners of said devices, and to competition in general. Let companies get away with that sort of thing and before you know it we will have tractor companies that stop farmers from fixing their own machines, or train companies bricking locomotives if they detect third party repair services being used.

 

[umeng2002]

Interesting to see some boot licker comments here. Anti-trust laws are hardly ever enforced this days. The DMCA is a joke of a law that has only been used to stifle competition, enabling monopolies like never before.

 

[pnntmp]

No and no.

-Not "any" app can be deployed. Apple is heavily restrictive and anti-competitive (which is why they're getting hit hard as shown in the article). Apps have been denied for even hinting that Apple is being restrictive towards an apps customers.
-You have to pay yearly for a dev account.

If you're going to talk about the topic, you should at least inform yourself enough to get the 2nd point correct lol

The only thing Apple restricts is cheating. There's nothing anti-competitive in that.
If you're making money off their ecosystem, you have to pay them. Trying to avoid that is cheating. If your app is free and you're not making money off it, you don't pay anything.

Any app that doesn't cheat can be deployed.
Of course, apps that cheat consistently are removed. That's perfectly OK.

The dev account fee is symbolic- $99/year - and does not even cover the expenses for checking the app (or apps - it remains $99 even if you have many apps).

 

[airbornex]

Judge Rogers just speedran what regulators worldwide have been dragging their feet on for years.

 

[pnntmp]

If a company have a shop, and only this shop can be used for deploying and selling an app, and if that company can remove any app at any time, and if that company actually threaten devs of free apps to make them paid due to popularity or they remove it, it is a clear monopoly.

If devs can't select another shop there is no competition.

If devs have to pay 30 pct of their gains to apple store and no other store can provide better pricing, it is monopoly.

If developer can't use different payment options, it is a monopoly.

Example: Apple own music application. it makes X monies.
Spotify own music application. it makes Y monies.
when someone pays for Spotify on Apple device, spotify gets 0.7 Y, and apple music gets 1X+0.3 Y.
Therefore, Spotify have to compete with apple music, but in reality it actually pays their competitor. With same number of users and same subscription fee, apple music will make nearly twice as much.
Add dezeer, yt music and so on and suddenly there is no more competition at all, all the competitor pays money to apple.

Too many If's .. Apple only removes apps that cheat - that is, apps that make money off Apple's ecosystem, but don't pay Apple. Why would they support freeloaders?

About Spotify - they pay Apple not because Apple has a competing app/service, but because Spotify makes money via Apple's ecosystem. If Spotify ever creates a hardware device and Apple wants to use it to distribute music, you'll have the same situation in reverse - Spotify will make nearly twice as much. Where is the problem?

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

Too many If's .. Apple only removes apps that cheat - that is, apps that make money off Apple's ecosystem, but don't pay Apple. Why would they support freeloaders?

About Spotify - they pay Apple not because Apple has a competing app/service, but because Spotify makes money via Apple's ecosystem. If Spotify ever creates a hardware device and Apple wants to use it to distribute music, you'll have the same situation in reverse - Spotify will make nearly twice as much. Where is the problem?

The whole idea that companies deserve to own/control an "ecosystem" is absurd. Once a company sells a device, well they no longer own it. The person who bought it does. That is what selling means. A software/hardware "ecosystem", belongs to the actual owners of the devices, not the company that originally sold the device. The idea that a third party wanting to sell stuff that works with a device are "freeloaders" is just silly. Basically any third-party accessory maker is a freeloader by that definitions - do you consider the people who make phone cases freeloaders? The people who make add-on window tint for cars? People who make home chargers for electric cars? People who make third party parts for tractor repair?

Edit, if anything, Apple is the freeloader here, expecting to gain profits from other's works without their involvement being required. In this case, Epic does not need Apple to run a store or payment processor, Epic can do that themselves. Epic simply wants to sell directly to the people who actually own iPhones, Apple is inserting themselves unnecessarily in that transaction so that Apple can take a cut.

 

[m4a4]

The only thing Apple restricts is cheating.

If you truly believe that, then you are not approaching this in good faith. Read an article or 2 that goes over all the ways that Apple is factually anti-competitive and try again with less ignorance. Maybe start with the article you are currently on?

"Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option."

The trillion dollar company doesn't care for you or your interests. Don't be a fanboy.

The dev account fee is symbolic- $99/year - and does not even cover the expenses for checking the app (or apps - it remains $99 even if you have many apps).

PS. That means it's not "100% free"

 

[Loadedaxe]

Its their system, their app store, they can do whatever they want! They made the investment, did all the leg work and no one should be telling them what they can do with it, especially Sweeney. You all are defending a bigger problem than Apple!

When government starts telling you how to live, you will see it differently. Imagine working for a long time on something and then told you have to share it....for free! Oh wait!

I digress, this world is going downhill so much, look at the ignorance being pushed on our children in schools, the immigration problem, no one is going to be happy until we are sheep in a field of communism!

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

Its their system, their app store, they can do whatever they want! They made the investment, did all the leg work and no one should be telling them what they can do with it, especially Sweeney. You all are defending a bigger problem than Apple!

When government starts telling you how to live, you will see it differently. Imagine working for a long time on something and then told you have to share it....for free! Oh wait!

I digress, this world is going downhill so much, look at the ignorance being pushed on our children in schools, the immigration problem, no one is going to be happy until we are sheep in a field of communism!

Once Apple sells the phone, it is not their system anymore. It is the system of the person who actually bought the phone. Apple should not be able to tell the actual owners of the devices they can do business with. Or do you think Ford should be able to tell you what gas stations you can take your car too? Or John Deere should be able to tell you who is permitted to fix your tractor (oh wait)?

 

[Loadedaxe]

Once Apple sells the phone, it is not there system anymore. It is the system of the person who actually bought the phone. Apple should not be able to tell the actual owners of the devices they can do business with. Or do you think Ford should be able to tell you what gas stations you can take your car too? Or John Deere should be able to tell you who is permitted to fix your tractor (oh wait)?

Thats a given when you buy the phone, your splitting hairs.

Its their eco system, you know what your doing when you buy it.

Your comparing apples to oranges, you dont buy a Ford and use Chevy app to control it.

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

Thats a given when you buy the phone, your splitting hairs.

Its their eco system, you know what your doing when you buy it.

Your comparing apples to oranges, you dont buy a Ford and use Chevy app to control it.

Why should it be a "given" then? For most of human history if you purchased an item, the seller would have no good way stopping you from using it along with some third party item or service; only very recently with electronic devices has it even possible for manufactures to pull such shenanigans.

And if General Motors wanted to make a general purpose car control app, well, why should Ford or other auto makers be able to artificially block the actual owner of a Ford vehicle from using it? I mean if I wanted to take the tire off a Chevy and stick them on a Ford I certainly can (assuming same sized wheels); if I wanted take seats out a Chevy and weld them into a Ford well it might look ugly but Ford has nothing that artifically stops me from doing so. Why should software be different? And looking into it, there are third-party car management software programs that can hook into your car for stuff like remote start and unlocking, like Viper Smartstart; should say Ford be able to block those third party companies?

Edit: and looking into more, GM does sell adapters for their On-Star service to work with non-GM vehicles, at least to fleet customers. So that really is not that far from Chevy app controlling a Ford car, lol. Do you think Ford should be able to require that GM pay Ford a licensing fee for using those adapters in Ford vehicles?