Pull to refresh
Logo
Daily Brief
Following Why
Apple’s App Store “junk fee” fight isn’t over—Ninth Circuit upholds contempt, reopens the commission door

Apple’s App Store “junk fee” fight isn’t over—Ninth Circuit upholds contempt, reopens the commission door

Rule Changes
By Newzino Staff |

The court kept the anti-steering crackdown alive, but told the trial judge: you can’t just ban fees—set rules for a “reasonable” one.

December 11th, 2025: Mixed Ninth Circuit ruling: contempt mostly upheld, commission ban narrowed

Overview

This case keeps producing the same kind of drama: a judge orders Apple to loosen its grip, Apple complies in a way that still protects the money, and Epic comes back yelling “that’s not compliance.” On December 11, 2025, the Ninth Circuit mostly backed the trial judge’s contempt finding that Apple played games with the anti-steering injunction—but clipped parts of the punishment.

The stakes are simple and huge. If developers can steer users to pay on the web without getting kneecapped by Apple’s rules, Apple’s App Store tollbooth looks a lot less mandatory. The court’s “mixed” ruling doesn’t end the fight—it pushes it back to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to define what a “reasonable” Apple commission could be, and what link-out friction is still allowed.

Key Indicators

27%
Apple’s disputed commission on linked-out purchases
The fee the courts treated as potentially “prohibitive” in practice.
54
Pages in the Ninth Circuit opinion
The panel affirmed contempt but remanded parts of the remedy for narrowing.
15%–30%
Typical Apple in-app purchase commission range
The baseline developers are trying to route around by steering users to the web.
2020–2025
Years since Fortnite’s removal sparked the lawsuit
A single rule-breaking update turned into a multi-year platform governance war.

Interactive

Exploring all sides of a story is often best achieved with Play.

Mark Twain

Mark Twain

(1835-1910) · Gilded Age · wit

Fictional AI pastiche — not real quote.

"It appears that when a man builds a tollbooth on the only road to market, he will defend his right to collect the toll with all the creative accounting and legal hair-splitting that money can buy—and the courts, bless them, will spend a decade arguing over whether he's allowed to chase down the farmers who try to sneak around through the woods."

Ever wondered what historical figures would say about today's headlines?

Sign up to generate historical perspectives on this story.

Sign Up

Debate Arena

Two rounds, two personas, one winner. You set the crossfire.

People Involved

Tim Sweeney
Tim Sweeney
CEO, Epic Games (Driving the enforcement campaign against Apple’s anti-steering workarounds)
Tim Cook
Tim Cook
CEO, Apple (Leading Apple as it defends App Store control while reworking U.S. rules under court pressure)
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
U.S. District Judge, Northern District of California (Assigned the remand to redesign contempt remedies and define a permissible fee framework)
Alex Roman
Alex Roman
Vice President of Finance, Apple (Referred for possible criminal contempt investigation tied to testimony disputes)

Organizations Involved

Apple
Apple
Technology Company
Status: Defending App Store rules; forced to allow link-outs while fighting fee limits

Apple is trying to keep App Store economics intact while courts demand real steering to web payments.

Epic Games, Inc.
Epic Games, Inc.
Video Game Developer and Publisher
Status: Pushing courts to enforce anti-steering order against Apple’s fee-and-friction tactics

Epic uses Fortnite as a battering ram against platform gatekeeping and app store commissions.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Federal appellate court
Status: Affirmed contempt finding but narrowed and remanded key remedy elements

The Ninth Circuit is shaping how far judges can go when policing platform compliance.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Federal trial court
Status: Origin court for the injunction and contempt order; now handling remand

The trial court where Apple’s App Store rules were put under an enforceable microscope.

Timeline

  1. Mixed Ninth Circuit ruling: contempt mostly upheld, commission ban narrowed

    Legal

    The panel affirms core contempt findings and keeps the injunction, but remands parts of the remedy and reopens the question of a “reasonable” Apple fee.

  2. Appeals court hears Apple’s challenge to the contempt penalties

    Legal

    Apple argues the district court’s remedies went too far; Epic argues Apple earned the hammer.

  3. Apple tries to pause the changes—and fails

    Legal

    The Ninth Circuit denies Apple’s emergency request to stay the new rules, keeping link-outs alive while the appeal proceeds.

  4. Contempt order detonates: Apple found to have willfully violated injunction

    Legal

    Judge Gonzalez Rogers finds Apple in civil contempt, attacks its decision-making and testimony, and orders sweeping U.S. App Store changes.

  5. Epic calls it fake compliance, asks for contempt

    Legal

    Epic tells the court Apple’s fees and restrictions make link-outs commercially useless and violate the injunction.

  6. Supreme Court passes; Apple rolls out link-outs with a 27% fee

    Rule Changes

    After the Supreme Court declines review, Apple introduces a U.S. external purchase link program that still charges commissions on web purchases.

  7. Ninth Circuit largely affirms the injunction’s survival

    Legal

    The appeals court keeps the anti-steering win standing, setting up the next fight: what “compliance” looks like.

  8. Epic loses big, but wins the anti-steering injunction

    Legal

    The court rejects most monopoly claims yet permanently bars Apple from blocking developers’ buttons, links, and calls to action to external purchases.

  9. The bench trial begins in federal court

    Legal

    Apple and Epic go to trial before Judge Gonzalez Rogers, turning platform rules into courtroom evidence.

  10. Judge draws a line: Unreal Engine protected, Fortnite not

    Legal

    A temporary restraining order blocks Apple from cutting off Epic’s developer tools tied to Unreal Engine, but leaves Fortnite banned.

  11. Fortnite “direct payment” triggers the explosion

    Legal

    Epic adds a payment option that bypasses Apple’s checkout. Apple removes Fortnite, and Epic sues the same day.

Scenarios

1

Judge Sets a “Cost-Based” Commission—Apple’s Take Drops to Single Digits

Discussed by: Coverage and commentary across Reuters, AP, and tech/legal analysts reading the remand as a “reasonable fee” fight

On remand, the district court builds a formula tied to Apple’s real costs of enabling external links, not the App Store’s legacy margin. Apple keeps a fee, but it’s low enough that major developers finally push users to the web at scale—making the U.S. App Store feel less like a required checkout lane and more like an option.

2

Apple Runs the Clock: En Banc or Supreme Court Petition Delays Real Change

Discussed by: Legal press and appellate watchers tracking post-opinion options after major Ninth Circuit platform cases

Apple seeks rehearing en banc and signals a Supreme Court petition, arguing the contempt remedies improperly regulate pricing and platform design. Even if Apple ultimately loses, the procedural runway slows the practical impact, giving Apple time to iterate new compliance designs while developers hesitate to rebuild billing flows around unstable rules.

3

A “Reasonable Fee” Becomes a New Toll—Apple Keeps Most of the Economics

Discussed by: Skeptical developer commentary and platform-economics analysts focused on how courts define “reasonable” in practice

The district court allows a commission that is meaningfully below 27% but still high enough, once payment processing and churn are factored in, that most developers stick with Apple’s in-app purchase system. Apple presents it as vindication: the court restored the right to be paid when its platform drives transactions, and the link-out escape hatch stays niche.

4

Epic Leverages Momentum Into a Broader Settlement—Fortnite Returns on New Terms

Discussed by: Tech press following Epic’s strategy to convert incremental court wins into distribution concessions

With contempt affirmed and Apple facing continued supervision, both sides find a face-saving deal: a defined commission ceiling, fewer “scare screen” tactics, and a path for Fortnite’s return if Epic agrees to strict technical and contractual conditions. The fight doesn’t end globally, but the U.S. dispute stops bleeding into quarterly headlines.

Historical Context

United States v. Microsoft (Browser and Windows tying fight)

1998–2001

What Happened

Microsoft was accused of using control over a dominant platform to disadvantage rivals and steer users toward Microsoft-controlled defaults. The case turned product design choices into legal evidence about exclusion and competition.

Outcome

Short Term

Microsoft avoided breakup but accepted conduct restrictions and long oversight.

Long Term

The case shaped how regulators and courts think about “platform power” and design as competition policy.

Why It's Relevant Today

Apple v. Epic is the mobile-era version of the same question: when is “integration” just control?

Ohio v. American Express (Anti-steering rules and market-definition battles)

2015–2018

What Happened

Merchants challenged contract clauses that blocked them from steering customers to cheaper payment methods. The Supreme Court’s reasoning put heavy weight on market definition and two-sided platform dynamics.

Outcome

Short Term

American Express prevailed at the Supreme Court under the Court’s framework.

Long Term

The decision became a reference point whenever platforms argue that steering limits protect ecosystems.

Why It's Relevant Today

It explains why Apple fights so hard on “platform economics,” while Epic attacks steering restrictions as the core choke point.

Visa/Mastercard interchange and steering disputes

1990s–2010s

What Happened

Card networks and merchants repeatedly clashed over fees and rules limiting steering users to cheaper payment rails. Litigation and regulation often revolved around what fee and rule constraints were competitively acceptable.

Outcome

Short Term

A mix of settlements and rule changes loosened some steering restrictions.

Long Term

The fights normalized the idea that payment rails can be regulated without eliminating them.

Why It's Relevant Today

The Ninth Circuit’s remand is basically a modern version: define a fee that isn’t a disguised ban.

10 Sources:
+4
Reuters Associated Press U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit (via Justia) CNBC U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (via Justia) 9to5Mac FindLaw Reuters CNBC CNBC