The Tool Desk
Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →The Epic Games vs. Apple case produced a mixed result, not a ruling that Apple is an illegal monopoly. In 2021, Epic lost its federal antitrust claims, but Apple was ordered to stop blocking App Store developers from directing customers to outside payment options. A later dispute over Apple’s compliance led to a 2025 contempt finding, much of which the Ninth Circuit upheld. A separate Supreme Court appeal was still pending as of September 28, 2026.
How the 2021 ruling split between Epic and Apple
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected Epic’s federal antitrust claims, including its broad monopoly theory. But she found against Apple on California anti-steering conduct and issued a permanent injunction. That order bars Apple from preventing covered App Store developers from using buttons, external links or calls to action that direct customers to outside purchasing mechanisms.
So the shorthand “Epic won” misses the result: Epic did not establish the broad federal antitrust case it brought, while Apple did lose on the anti-steering issue and became subject to an injunction.
What the 2021 injunction does—and does not—require
It permits directions to outside purchasing
The injunction concerns developers’ ability to communicate with customers about purchasing outside an app, including through links, buttons and calls to action. It does not require Apple to make any particular outside payment service available inside an app.
#1 Best Overall
It is not an app-store or sideloading mandate
An anti-steering rule is about whether a developer may point customers toward another way to pay. It is different from requiring Apple to allow third-party app stores or sideloading, meaning installation of apps outside Apple’s App Store. The injunction described in this case does not itself require either of those changes.
How the three major rulings differ
| Proceeding | Legal question | Conduct at issue | Result or remedy | Scope and status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2021 merits judgment | Did Apple violate federal antitrust law as Epic claimed, and did its anti-steering conduct violate California law? | Apple’s restrictions on developers directing customers to outside purchasing options. | The court rejected Epic’s federal antitrust claims but issued a permanent anti-steering injunction against Apple. | The injunction applies to the conduct and developers within its terms; it is not a general order governing every app platform or jurisdiction. The Supreme Court declined both sides’ petitions in January 2024, leaving the injunction operative. |
| April 2025 district-court contempt order | Had Apple complied with the injunction? | The court found that Apple’s 27% commission and restrictions on link design made external purchasing impractical and violated the order. | The court held Apple in civil contempt and ordered it not to impede developer communications with users or impose a new commission on off-app purchases. | The order concerned Apple’s compliance with the injunction. Apple appealed. |
| December 11, 2025 Ninth Circuit decision | Was the contempt finding and the district court’s sanction order proper? | Apple’s 27% commission and link restrictions, along with the sanctions imposed for noncompliance. | The court affirmed the contempt finding and core injunction, while reversing or remanding portions of the sanctions order. | The injunction was not vacated. Apple’s separate Supreme Court appeal was granted in 2026 and remained pending as of September 28, 2026. |
The Associated Press described Apple’s App Store commission range as 15% to 30% under the then-exclusive payment system in its 2025 reporting. That reported range is not the same claim as the Ninth Circuit’s finding about a 27% commission: the appeals court concluded that the 27% charge at issue had a prohibitive effect under the injunction. It does not establish that every developer pays that rate or that Apple can never charge any commission.
Rank #2
- Ideal for Gifting
- Ideal for a bookworm
- Compact for travelling
Why Apple was held in contempt
The contempt dispute was about compliance with the existing injunction, not a new trial of Epic’s original monopoly claim. The district court concluded that Apple’s 27% commission and restrictions on how developers could present links undermined the ability to direct customers to outside purchases. Judge Rogers said, as reported by the Associated Press, “Apple’s continued attempts to interfere with competition will not be tolerated.” The court’s operative order required Apple to “no longer impede developers’ ability to communicate with users nor will they levy or impose a new commission on off-app purchases.”
The Ninth Circuit later agreed that Apple’s commission had a prohibitive effect and that its link restrictions violated the injunction. It affirmed contempt and declined to vacate the injunction, but it did not leave every part of the district court’s sanctions order intact: some portions were reversed or sent back for further proceedings.
Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchWindows Errors? Fix Them Before They Spread
Repair common Windows errors and clear accumulated junk for a smoother, more stable PC - no reinstall needed.Free scan · no reinstallIs the Epic Games vs. Apple case over?
No. The original Supreme Court petitions were denied on January 16, 2024, but that was not the end of the later contempt appeal. The Supreme Court granted Apple’s petition in docket No. 25-1311 on June 30, 2026, limited to Question 1. The Ninth Circuit had denied rehearing on March 30, 2026. Justice Kagan denied Apple’s stay application on August 13, 2026, and Apple filed its merits brief on September 14. As of September 28, 2026, the docket showed no oral argument or final Supreme Court merits decision, so the outcome of this review remained unresolved.
Quick Recap
Best Value
- It can be a gift option
- Comes with secure packaging
- Helpful in various ways
Rank #4
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.
