A federal judge ordered Apple on April 30, 2025, to stop charging a commission on purchases made after users followed an external link from an iPhone or iPad app. The order also barred Apple from restricting how developers present those links. That was a real contempt ruling—but it is not the final legal position.
On December 11, 2025, the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the contempt finding while allowing the possibility of a narrower fee tied only to costs genuinely and reasonably necessary to support external links. As of August 16, 2026, the Supreme Court had accepted Apple’s appeal on the contempt question but had not issued a merits decision.
The short version
- The April 30, 2025 district-court order targeted purchases completed outside an iOS app after a user followed an external link.
- It did not abolish Apple’s ordinary commission on transactions processed through Apple’s in-app payment system.
- The district court found Apple in civil contempt because its 27% external commission and link restrictions undermined the purpose of the injunction.
- The Ninth Circuit upheld the contempt ruling but said a future fee could be possible if it is limited to genuinely necessary, proportionate external-link costs and approved by the district court.
- The Supreme Court’s review is limited to whether Apple could be held in civil contempt for violating the injunction. It had not decided that issue by August 16, 2026.
How the dispute began
Epic Games sued Apple in 2020 after Apple removed Fortnite when Epic introduced a payment option designed to bypass Apple’s in-app-payment system. Apple’s standard App Store arrangement has historically required many digital-goods and digital-service transactions to use Apple’s billing system, with Apple receiving a commission under the applicable program.
In September 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected most of Epic’s broader claims but found Apple’s anti-steering restrictions unlawful under California law. The resulting injunction required Apple to let developers communicate with users about alternative payment methods and include links to those options. It applied to iOS developers generally, not just Epic.
#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%.
What Apple did to comply
Apple eventually created its Link Entitlement system for U.S. apps. Developers could send users to a website or another external payment service, but Apple attached conditions that became the center of the contempt dispute.
The disputed conditions
- A commission of up to 27% on purchases completed after users followed an external link.
- Rules about how links could be displayed and presented.
- Reporting, auditing and other requirements for external transactions.
- Apple’s claimed safeguards and charges for security, privacy, fraud prevention, user protection and platform support.
The district court concluded that allowing a link in theory was not enough if the fee and presentation rules made using that link commercially unattractive. The Ninth Circuit later described the 27% commission as prohibitive in the circumstances because it discouraged developers from steering users away from Apple’s payment system.
What the April 30, 2025 order actually prohibited
The district court found Apple in civil contempt and ordered it to stop:
- Imposing a commission or fee on a purchase made outside an iOS app after the consumer used an external link.
- Restricting, conditioning, limiting or prohibiting how developers directed users to external purchases.
- Otherwise interfering with the user’s choice to remain in the app or proceed to an outside payment option.
Apple’s regulatory description of the order is in its March 28, 2026 Form 10-Q. The order did not say Apple had to eliminate every App Store commission. A purchase processed through Apple’s own in-app-payment system is a different category from a transaction that begins with an in-app link and finishes on a developer-controlled website.
The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →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.
The court also referred Apple’s conduct to federal prosecutors for consideration of possible criminal-contempt proceedings. That referral was not a criminal conviction. The sanctions and injunction at issue here were based on civil contempt.
Why the court found contempt
The court focused on both the text and the purpose of the 2021 injunction. In its view, Apple technically permitted links while imposing economic and design conditions that preserved much of the anti-steering effect the injunction was meant to remove.
This is a compliance dispute, not a finding that Epic won every antitrust claim. Epic received anti-steering relief, but the original judgment rejected most of its broader case against Apple’s App Store model.
What changed on appeal
On December 11, 2025, the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the contempt ruling and much of the injunction. It rejected, however, an absolute rule that Apple could never collect any fee on a linked-out transaction.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
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
The possible fee framework
The appeals court sent the fee question back for a more specific determination. A permitted fee would have to be tied to costs genuinely and reasonably necessary to coordinate or support external links, rather than to Apple’s entire App Store business.
- Costs must relate to external-link functionality.
- Costs already incurred for Apple’s in-app-payment system must be allocated equitably and proportionately.
- Apple may not charge for security or privacy features used exclusively by its own in-app-payment system.
- Apple should not collect a commission until the district court approves an appropriate amount.
- The district court may use expert evidence or a technical committee to evaluate the amount.
That framework is not a ruling that Apple may charge 15%, 27% or any other fixed percentage. The permissible amount, if any, remains to be determined through the lower-court proceedings.
Supreme Court status as of August 16, 2026
The Supreme Court granted Apple’s petition on June 30, 2026, but accepted only the first question presented: whether Apple could be held in civil contempt for violating the 2021 injunction. The No. 25-1311 docket did not show a final merits ruling by August 16, 2026.
The Court therefore had not decided whether Apple’s entire App Store model is unlawful, whether the 27% fee is permanently barred, or what final commercial fee should apply to external transactions.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsRank #4
- 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.
Apple also asked the Supreme Court to pause the lower-court proceedings. Justice Kagan denied that stay application on May 6, 2026, as shown on the stay docket. A stay denial is procedural; it is not a decision on the merits.
Key dates and what each means
| Date | Event | Practical significance |
|---|---|---|
| August 2020 | Epic sued Apple after the Fortnite payment dispute. | The litigation began. |
| September 2021 | District court issued its judgment and anti-steering injunction. | Apple had to allow communications and links about alternative payment methods. |
| 2024 | Apple’s U.S. obligation to permit external-payment links took effect. | Apple introduced the Link Entitlement framework. |
| April 30, 2025 | District court found Apple in civil contempt. | The disputed external-purchase fee and related interference were prohibited. |
| June 2025 | Ninth Circuit declined to pause the order during appeal. | The district-court order remained operative while the appeal proceeded. |
| December 11, 2025 | Ninth Circuit upheld contempt but allowed a possible cost-based fee after remand. | The absolute no-fee rule was modified. |
| March 30, 2026 | Ninth Circuit denied rehearing. | The panel decision remained in place. |
| May 4–6, 2026 | Apple sought a Supreme Court stay; Justice Kagan denied it. | Lower-court proceedings were not automatically halted. |
| June 30, 2026 | Supreme Court granted limited review. | Only the contempt question was accepted. |
| September 14, 2026 | Apple’s merits brief and joint appendix were due under the docket. | This deadline was still ahead on the August 16 snapshot date. |
| November 13, 2026 | Epic’s merits brief was due. | This deadline was also future on that snapshot date. |
What it means for app developers
Potential upside
- More freedom to direct customers to web-based checkout.
- Potentially lower payment costs if outside processing is cheaper than Apple’s applicable in-app rate.
- Greater control over subscriptions, customer relationships, refunds, pricing and account data.
- Ability to use existing web-commerce systems rather than build a separate iOS billing path.
Costs and operational risks
- The developer must operate or contract for checkout, payment processing, tax collection, fraud controls, identity checks and customer support.
- Any fee approved for Apple could reduce or eliminate expected savings.
- External payments may require additional reporting, technical integration and compliance work.
- Users may be less comfortable leaving an app to pay on a website.
A link in an app does not mean Apple processed the transaction. The relevant framework concerns purchases that start with an iOS-app link and finish through an external payment system. Web purchases made independently of an app may not fall within the same rules.
What it means for users
The ruling does not guarantee lower prices. A developer may keep the savings, reduce the price, offer a promotion or use the money for processing and support.
External checkout can also change who handles refunds, subscription cancellation, billing disputes, privacy disclosures and account recovery. Before paying, compare the total price—including taxes, payment fees and currency-conversion costs—and check the developer’s refund and support terms. Apple not processing a payment does not automatically make the outside page cheaper or safer.
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
What it means for Apple
Apple has argued that external transactions can still benefit from iOS distribution, app review, security, privacy, fraud prevention and link infrastructure. The Ninth Circuit did not categorically rule out compensation for every external-link service. It required any fee to be connected to genuinely necessary costs and structured so it does not recreate an economic barrier to steering users elsewhere.
What happens next
Two proceedings matter. First, the district court must apply the Ninth Circuit’s cost-based framework and decide whether any fee is justified and, if so, how much. Second, the Supreme Court will review the civil-contempt question. The Supreme Court’s eventual decision could affirm, reverse or modify the contempt ruling, but it may not itself set the final commercial fee for external transactions.
The injunction is a U.S. court order. It does not automatically create a worldwide rule; the European Union and other jurisdictions have separate laws and regulatory regimes.
Bottom line
Apple was ordered on April 30, 2025, to stop the disputed fee on linked-out purchases, but the Ninth Circuit later allowed the possibility of a much narrower, cost-based fee after further proceedings. As of August 16, 2026, the Supreme Court’s review of the contempt issue remained unresolved, so neither a permanent zero-fee rule nor a final replacement percentage had been established.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
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.
