Epic forced Apple to permit developers to direct U.S. App Store customers to alternative payment methods, but it did not dismantle Apple’s App Store model. Epic lost its main federal antitrust claims, won a California anti-steering claim, and obtained an injunction. Apple was later found in civil contempt for making the remedy economically and practically ineffective. As of August 16, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing the contempt standard—not whether Apple is generally an illegal monopoly.
The short version
- Epic deliberately bypassed Apple’s In-App Purchase system in Fortnite in August 2020, prompting Apple to remove the game and Epic to sue.
- The 2021 district-court judgment rejected Epic’s central monopolization and payment-system antitrust theories.
- Epic won under California’s Unfair Competition Law on Apple’s anti-steering rules, which had barred developers from telling users about alternative ways to pay.
- The injunction covers buttons, links and other calls to action leading to non-Apple purchasing mechanisms in apps distributed through the U.S. App Store.
- It does not require alternative app stores, sideloading, Fortnite’s reinstatement or a permanent zero-percent Apple fee.
- Apple’s 27% linked-out commission and related design restrictions led to an April 2025 contempt finding. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that finding in December 2025 but remanded parts of the sanction and fee analysis.
- The Supreme Court granted review on June 30, 2026, only on whether civil contempt may rest on an injunction’s “spirit” when the order does not clearly prohibit the precise conduct.
How the dispute began
Epic created a test case rather than merely complaining about App Store policy. In August 2020, it embedded a payment option in Fortnite that bypassed Apple’s In-App Purchase system and its commission. Apple removed Fortnite, and Epic filed suit while publicly arguing that Apple’s distribution and payment rules were anticompetitive.
Epic challenged several distinct practices: Apple’s control over iOS app distribution, the requirement that digital purchases use Apple’s billing system, and anti-steering rules that prevented developers from informing customers about cheaper or different payment options. Epic also brought claims under California competition law.
What the 2021 judgment decided
Claims Epic lost
The district court rejected Epic’s principal federal and California antitrust theories that Apple unlawfully monopolized iOS app distribution or that mandatory use of Apple’s In-App Purchase system, by itself, violated antitrust law. The judgment therefore did not label the App Store an unlawful monopoly.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
#1 Best Overall
- This phone is unlocked and compatible with any carrier of choice on GSM and CDMA networks (e.g. AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon, US Cellular, Cricket, Metro, Tracfone, Mint Mobile, etc.).
- Please check with your carrier to verify compatibility.
- The device does not come with headphones or a SIM card. It does include a generic (Mfi certified) charging cable.
- Tested for battery health and guaranteed to have a minimum battery capacity of 80%.
Claim Epic won
The court accepted Epic’s anti-steering theory under California’s Unfair Competition Law. It found that preventing developers from directing informed customers to alternative purchasing mechanisms unlawfully impeded consumer choice.
The permanent injunction issued on September 10, 2021, applied to developers distributing apps through the U.S. App Store storefront. Apple had to stop prohibiting buttons, external links and comparable calls to action that direct customers to non-Apple purchasing options. The Ninth Circuit’s later opinion summarizes the judgment and injunction at cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/12/11/25-2935.pdf.
What the injunction did—and did not—change
| Covered by the injunction | Not ordered by the injunction |
|---|---|
| Buttons, links and other calls to action leading to alternative purchasing mechanisms | Third-party app stores on U.S. iPhone or iPad |
| Developer communications that help users learn about external payment options | Sideloading or a right to distribute the Epic Games Store through iOS |
| Apps distributed through the U.S. App Store storefront | Elimination of Apple’s In-App Purchase system |
| Consumer choice about where a transaction occurs | A permanent zero-percent commission on external transactions |
Apple’s App Review Guidelines still generally require In-App Purchase for digital features and content, subject to applicable exceptions and legal changes: developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/. A lawful link-out is not the same thing as permission to operate another app marketplace inside iOS.
Rank #2
- 6.9" LTPO Super Retina XDR OLED, 120Hz, HDR10, Dolby Vision, 1320x2868px at 460ppi, 1000 nits (typ), 2000 nits (HBM), 4685mAh Battery
- 1TB, 8GB RAM, Apple A18 Pro (3nm), Hexa-core (2x4.05 GHz + 4x2.42 GHz), Apple GPU 6-core, iOS 18, upgradable to iOS 18.3
- Rear camera: 48MP, f/1.8 (wide) + 12MP, f/2.8 (periscope telephoto) 5x optical zoom + 48MP, f/2.2 (ultrawide), TOF 3D LiDAR scanner (depth), Front Camera: 12MP, f/1.9 (wide)
- 2G: 850/900/1800/1900, 3G: HSDPA 850/900/1700(AWS)/1900/2100, 4G LTE: 1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/13/14/17/18/19/20/25/26/28/29/30/32/34/38/39/40/41/42/48/53/66/71, 1/2/3/5/7/8/12/14/20/25/26/28/29/30/38/40/41/48/53/66/70/71/75/76/77/78/79/258/260/261 SA/NSA/Sub6/mmWave - Dual eSIM
- Unlocked for freedom to choose your carrier. Compatible with both GSM & CDMA networks. The phone is unlocked to work with all GSM Carriers & CDMA Carriers Including AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint., Etc.
Apple’s 27% implementation and the contempt fight
Apple allowed external links but imposed presentation and user-flow restrictions and introduced a 27% commission on purchases made after a user followed a link out of an app. In the litigation, Apple’s ordinary standard In-App Purchase commission was described as 30%; the 27% linked-out charge was a separate compliance approach.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Epic argued that a link was not meaningful if Apple made it unattractive, difficult to use or economically pointless. On April 30, 2025, the district court found Apple in civil contempt. It concluded that the 27% charge had a prohibitive effect, that link-design restrictions impeded access, and that Apple acted in bad faith by attempting to preserve the anti-steering barrier while appearing to comply.
The contempt finding did not mean every fee on every external transaction was permanently unlawful. It addressed the implementation challenged in that proceeding.
Rank #3
- 6.1inch Super Retina XDR display. Aluminum with color-infused glass back. Ring/Silent switch
- Dynamic Island. A magical way to interact with iPhone. A16 Bionic chip with 5-core GPU
- Advanced dual-camera system. 48MP Main | Ultra Wide. Super-high-resolution photos (24MP and 48MP). Next-generation portraits with Focus and Depth Control. 4X optical zoom range
- Emergency SOS via satellite. Crash Detection. Roadside Assistance via satellite
- Up to 26 hours video playback. USB C, Supports USB 2. Face ID
What the Ninth Circuit decided in December 2025
| Kept in force | Reversed, narrowed or sent back |
|---|---|
| The finding that Apple violated the injunction | The blanket zero-commission contempt sanction was not sufficiently tailored |
| The civil-contempt finding | Some link-design restrictions were overbroad |
| The conclusion that the 27% charge could be prohibitive | The district court must develop a more precise fee framework |
| The core anti-steering injunction and refusal to vacate it | Issues involving developers in Apple’s VPP and NPP programs require further consideration |
| Restrictions against making external links ineffective | The case was not reassigned to a different judge |
The Ninth Circuit held that a court may consider conduct designed to defeat an injunction’s purpose, not only conduct that violates its narrowest literal wording. It suggested that a future fee might reflect genuinely necessary costs of coordinating external links and limited compensation for Apple intellectual property directly used in that process. That was guidance for remand, not a final nationwide rate. Read the opinion at cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2025/12/11/25-2935.pdf.
What the Supreme Court is reviewing
On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court granted Apple’s petition in Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, No. 25-1311, only on Question 1:
Whether a court may hold a party in civil contempt based on an injunction’s “spirit” when the injunction is silent about the conduct at issue, or whether contempt requires a clear and unambiguous prohibition of the precise conduct.
Rank #4
Apple iPhone 13, 128GB, Midnight - Unlocked (Renewed)
- This pre-owned product is not Apple certified, but has been professionally inspected, tested and cleaned by Amazon-qualified suppliers.
- There will be no visible cosmetic imperfections when held at an arm’s length.
- This product is eligible for a replacement or refund within 90 days of receipt if you are not satisfied.
- Product may come in generic Box.
The Court did not accept Question 2, which concerned limits discussed in Trump v. CASA. This is therefore primarily a case about contempt doctrine and interpretation of injunctions, not a new trial over Apple’s market power or the legality of its entire App Store business.
Under the current docket, Apple’s merits brief and joint appendix are due September 14, 2026, and Epic’s response is due November 13, 2026: supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/25-1311.html. The accepted question is reproduced at supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/qp/25-01311qp.pdf.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What it means for developers
Apple billing remains the simpler path
In-App Purchase remains the ordinary route for subscriptions, game currency, levels, premium content and other digital functionality. Apple supplies billing, refunds, parental-control tools, fraud systems and entitlement infrastructure. Those services can be worth more than the potential savings from an external checkout.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Best Value
- 6.7inch Super Retina XDR display. ProMotion technology. Always-On display. Titanium with textured matte glass back. Action button
- Dynamic Island. A magical way to interact with iPhone. A17 Pro chip with 6-core GPU
- Pro camera system. 48MP Main | Ultra Wide| Telephoto. Super-high-resolution photos (24MP and 48MP). Next-generation portraits with Focus and Depth Control. Up to 10x optical zoom range
- Emergency SOS via satellite. Crash Detection. Roadside Assistance via satellite
- Up to 29 hours video playback. USB-C, Supports USB 3 for up to 20x faster transfers. Face ID
External checkout creates new obligations
Where a developer may lawfully link out, it must operate or outsource payment processing, tax collection, refunds, fraud prevention, chargebacks, customer support, account linking and entitlement synchronization. Payment-processor fees, compliance work and potentially lower conversion can reduce the benefit of avoiding Apple’s percentage commission.
- Use Apple billing when operational simplicity and Apple-managed support matter most.
- Consider an external checkout when the legal permission is clear and the expected savings exceed processing, tax, support and conversion costs.
- Do not assume a court-protected link makes any particular payment vendor, pricing model or checkout design compliant.
What it means for consumers
The remedy can give users more information and a chance to compare Apple billing with a developer’s own checkout. It does not guarantee lower prices: developers choose prices, and external processing and compliance costs may absorb savings.
External payment pages may require a separate account and may not offer Apple-managed refunds, parental controls or the same dispute process. Users should verify the domain, understand who will handle support and avoid entering credentials on unexpected pages. More choice can improve competition while also increasing phishing, privacy and account-management risks.
No, this ruling does not automatically bring back Fortnite
The judgment did not order Apple to restore Epic’s developer account, approve Fortnite, or authorize the Epic Games Store on U.S. iOS devices. A return would require a separate App Store approval, settlement, licensing arrangement or additional legal development. The same distinction applies to alternative app stores: payment links, third-party payment processing, sideloading and app-store distribution are different issues.
What remains unresolved
- Whether the Supreme Court will uphold the Ninth Circuit’s contempt approach or require a clear textual violation.
- Whether the contempt finding survives under the Supreme Court’s standard.
- What fee, if any, Apple may charge for linked-out purchases after remand.
- Whether any fee must be limited to necessary coordination costs and narrowly defined intellectual-property use.
- Which neutral design rules Apple may impose and whether it may exclude developers from particular payment programs.
- How long the current implementation remains in force during further proceedings.
- Whether Epic returns Fortnite or the Epic Games Store to U.S. iOS users.
- Whether legislation, regulation or separate litigation produces broader App Store changes.
Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| August 2020 | Epic bypassed Apple’s payment system in Fortnite; Apple removed the game and Epic sued. |
| September 10, 2021 | The district court issued the permanent anti-steering injunction. |
| 2021–2024 | The judgment and injunction proceeded through appellate review; the Supreme Court declined the earlier appeal. |
| April 30, 2025 | The district court found Apple in civil contempt. |
| December 11, 2025 | The Ninth Circuit affirmed contempt but remanded parts of the sanction and fee analysis. |
| March 30, 2026 | The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing and rehearing en banc. |
| June 30, 2026 | The Supreme Court granted review limited to Question 1. |
Bottom line for the App Store economy
Epic weakened Apple’s ability to block consumer steering, but it did not win a ruling that dismantled Apple’s vertically integrated distribution and payment model. The immediate economic fight is over whether external links are genuinely usable and what narrowly tailored fee, if any, can accompany them. The Supreme Court’s decision may define how forcefully lower courts can enforce injunctions, while leaving the broader economics of the App Store to later proceedings, legislation and other cases.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
