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
People Involved
Organizations Involved
Apple is trying to keep App Store economics intact while courts demand real steering to web payments.
Epic uses Fortnite as a battering ram against platform gatekeeping and app store commissions.
The Ninth Circuit is shaping how far judges can go when policing platform compliance.
The trial court where Apple’s App Store rules were put under an enforceable microscope.
Timeline
-
Mixed Ninth Circuit ruling: contempt mostly upheld, commission ban narrowed
LegalThe panel affirms core contempt findings and keeps the injunction, but remands parts of the remedy and reopens the question of a “reasonable” Apple fee.
-
Appeals court hears Apple’s challenge to the contempt penalties
LegalApple argues the district court’s remedies went too far; Epic argues Apple earned the hammer.
-
Apple tries to pause the changes—and fails
LegalThe Ninth Circuit denies Apple’s emergency request to stay the new rules, keeping link-outs alive while the appeal proceeds.
-
Contempt order detonates: Apple found to have willfully violated injunction
LegalJudge Gonzalez Rogers finds Apple in civil contempt, attacks its decision-making and testimony, and orders sweeping U.S. App Store changes.
-
Epic calls it fake compliance, asks for contempt
LegalEpic tells the court Apple’s fees and restrictions make link-outs commercially useless and violate the injunction.
-
Supreme Court passes; Apple rolls out link-outs with a 27% fee
Rule ChangesAfter the Supreme Court declines review, Apple introduces a U.S. external purchase link program that still charges commissions on web purchases.
-
Ninth Circuit largely affirms the injunction’s survival
LegalThe appeals court keeps the anti-steering win standing, setting up the next fight: what “compliance” looks like.
-
Epic loses big, but wins the anti-steering injunction
LegalThe court rejects most monopoly claims yet permanently bars Apple from blocking developers’ buttons, links, and calls to action to external purchases.
-
The bench trial begins in federal court
LegalApple and Epic go to trial before Judge Gonzalez Rogers, turning platform rules into courtroom evidence.
-
Judge draws a line: Unreal Engine protected, Fortnite not
LegalA temporary restraining order blocks Apple from cutting off Epic’s developer tools tied to Unreal Engine, but leaves Fortnite banned.
-
Fortnite “direct payment” triggers the explosion
LegalEpic adds a payment option that bypasses Apple’s checkout. Apple removes Fortnite, and Epic sues the same day.
Scenarios
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.
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.
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.
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)
1998–2001What 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
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)
2015–2018What 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
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–2010sWhat 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
The Ninth Circuit’s remand is basically a modern version: define a fee that isn’t a disguised ban.