Listen to the article
Federal appeals court on Thursday delivered a mixed ruling in Apple’s ongoing legal battle with Epic Games over the iPhone app store, upholding a contempt finding against the tech giant while allowing it to potentially collect commissions on alternative payment systems.
The unanimous decision by a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals largely validated a contempt order issued in April by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who had determined that Apple deliberately violated key aspects of her September 2021 ruling in the case brought by Epic Games.
However, the appeals court overturned a significant portion of the contempt order that had prohibited Apple from collecting any commissions when consumers make purchases through payment systems outside Apple’s control. The judges determined this blanket ban was too severe and instructed Gonzalez Rogers to reopen the case to establish a fair commission rate that Apple can charge for transactions processed through alternative payment methods.
The legal dispute dates back to 2020 when Epic Games, the creator of the popular Fortnite video game, sued Apple, alleging that its tightly controlled iPhone app store had evolved into an illegal monopoly. Epic specifically targeted Apple’s requirement that all in-app purchases on iPhones must be processed through Apple’s payment system, which imposed commissions between 15% and 30%.
These commissions have become a critical revenue source for Apple, contributing significantly to its services division that generates over $100 billion annually. The case represented a direct challenge to Apple’s “walled garden” approach, the company’s strategy of maintaining strict control over its devices and software ecosystem.
While Judge Gonzalez Rogers rejected Epic’s monopoly claims in her 2021 ruling, she ordered Apple to allow developers to include links to alternative payment options within their apps. Apple continued fighting this requirement through appeals until January 2024, when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case, effectively upholding the lower court’s decision.
Following the Supreme Court’s rejection, Apple announced it would implement a new policy allowing alternative payment systems but would still charge commissions ranging from 12% to 27% on purchases made through those systems. The rates remained high enough that few developers chose to offer alternative payment options to consumers.
This prompted Epic to argue that Apple was in contempt of court, a claim Judge Gonzalez Rogers eventually supported after contentious court hearings. She concluded that Apple’s implementation was essentially a “sham” designed to technically comply with her order while maintaining the status quo.
In its 54-page decision, the appeals court provided general guidelines for how Judge Gonzalez Rogers might determine a reasonable commission rate for external payment systems but offered no specific percentage suggestions. The ruling effectively sends the matter back to the district court to establish parameters for Apple’s commission structure on alternative payment options.
The decision represents a partial victory for both companies. While Apple must still allow alternative payment systems and faces the continued finding of contempt, it has secured the right to charge some level of commission on transactions processed outside its system. For Epic and other app developers, the ruling preserves alternative payment options but leaves uncertainty about how much financial benefit they’ll ultimately provide.
Neither Apple nor Epic immediately responded to requests for comment following Thursday’s ruling.
The case continues to have broad implications for the mobile app economy, potentially reshaping how digital marketplaces operate and how revenue is shared between platform owners and software developers. The final determination on commission rates will be closely watched by the tech industry, app developers, and consumers alike.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
8 Comments
The mobile app market is a lucrative but tightly controlled space, so it’s not surprising to see continued legal battles over fees and access. This ruling appears to recognize the need for some flexibility, while still maintaining guardrails against Apple’s more egregious actions. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
The appeals court’s decision seems to acknowledge the nuances in this case. Upholding the contempt finding against Apple, but allowing some commissions, suggests they’re trying to find a middle ground. I’m curious to see what the new commission rate ends up being and how it impacts the app ecosystem.
This is an interesting case with implications for the mobile app ecosystem. It seems the appeals court wants to find a middle ground where Apple can collect some fees but not an outright ban. I’m curious to see what commission rate the lower court will determine as ‘fair’.
The ongoing battle between Apple and Epic Games over App Store fees continues. The appeals court’s mixed ruling leaves room for further legal wrangling, but at least it’s not a complete win for either side. I wonder how this will ultimately impact app developers and consumers.
This is a complex case with high stakes for both Apple and app developers. The appeals court’s mixed ruling suggests they’re trying to balance the interests of the various stakeholders. I’ll be following this closely to see how the lower court determines a ‘fair’ commission rate for alternative payment systems.
The ongoing legal dispute between Apple and Epic Games highlights the power dynamics within the mobile app ecosystem. This ruling seems to recognize that while Apple can’t completely ban alternative payment options, they should be able to collect some level of commission. It will be interesting to see how this impacts the industry going forward.
This ruling highlights the ongoing tensions between tech giants and the developers/consumers they serve. The appeals court seems to be seeking a middle ground, but it remains to be seen how effective that will be in practice. I’m curious to see how this case continues to unfold.
This ruling highlights the complexities around regulating powerful tech platforms like the App Store. It’s a tricky balance between protecting consumer choice and allowing platforms to monetize their services. The court seems to be aiming for a compromise, which may be the best path forward.