The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEFix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →Outbyte PC Repair FREERepair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →On December 11, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed that Apple violated the anti-steering injunction in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc. The court left the injunction in place but reversed and sent back parts of the remedies imposed by the district court, including its categorical ban on Apple charging any fee for purchases made through external links. Apple did not win approval to restore its 27% charge: the permissible fee, if any, remains for the lower court to address.
What the Ninth Circuit decided
The appeals court separated the question of whether Apple disobeyed the injunction from the question of whether every sanction was legally appropriate. It affirmed the civil-contempt finding, while affirming some parts of the sanctions order and reversing and remanding others. The original anti-steering injunction remains in effect. The controlling source is the court’s opinion in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., appeal no. 25-2935, filed December 11, 2025: Ninth Circuit opinion.
| Issue | Result |
|---|---|
| Did Apple violate the anti-steering injunction? | Yes. The contempt finding was affirmed. |
| Was the injunction vacated? | No. It remains in force. |
| Did the court approve Apple’s 27% external-purchase commission? | No. The court treated the charge as prohibitive under the injunction but did not set a final alternative fee. |
| Did the court uphold every remedy imposed by the district court? | No. It reversed and remanded portions of the sanctions order, including the categorical fee prohibition. |
What Apple did that led to contempt
The dispute concerned Apple’s rules for developers who wanted to tell customers about payment options outside the App Store. Apple allowed qualifying external links, but imposed restrictions on their design and presentation, limited how developers could direct customers to other purchasing methods, and charged a 27% commission on certain purchases made outside the App Store within seven days after a customer clicked an external-payment link. The 27% rate and seven-day window are described in contemporaneous reporting; Apple’s standard in-app commission was described as 30%: Reuters report republished by Investing.com, December 11, 2025.
The Ninth Circuit upheld the district court’s conclusion that the restrictions—including the 27% charge—undermined the injunction’s purpose by making external purchasing difficult or commercially unattractive. A link can be technically available without offering a meaningful alternative if the rules surrounding it make it impractical to use.
#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%.
The dispute centered on digital goods and services. The opinion distinguishes those transactions from physical goods; it should not be read as a ruling that Apple must change every kind of purchase flow or its entire App Store business model.
Why the court considered the injunction’s purpose
Apple argued that contempt could not rest on the broader purpose of the injunction rather than its precise wording. The Ninth Circuit rejected that argument in this case: a court may consider an order’s purpose when a party’s narrow reading would let it evade the order’s objectives. Apple could not satisfy an anti-steering injunction merely by permitting links on paper while imposing restrictions that substantially frustrated their use.
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.
That principle has a limit. Contempt must remain anchored to a specific and definite court order; it is not permission to create new obligations unrelated to the injunction. The court concluded that Apple’s conduct crossed the line drawn by the existing order, while separately finding that some of the district court’s remedies went too far as contempt sanctions.
What Apple won—and what it did not
The district court must revisit parts of the remedy
The Ninth Circuit found some of the district court’s six prescriptive restrictions overbroad. It also held that an outright prohibition on any fee for linked-out purchases was not properly structured as a civil-contempt sanction in its existing form. Those parts of the order were sent back for modification.
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 27% rate was not reinstated
The appeals court did not declare that Apple may resume charging 27%, nor did it decide what rate would be reasonable. Apple may argue on remand for a fee, but the district court must address the issue within the limits of the injunction and the appellate ruling. A fee’s existence and amount therefore remained unresolved in the December 11 decision.
The injunction and contempt finding survived
Apple did not persuade the Ninth Circuit to vacate the anti-steering injunction or overturn the contempt finding. The appellate ruling is consequently a partial remedy victory for Apple, not a reversal of the central finding that it violated the order.
Rank #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.
How the original Epic injunction arose
Epic sued Apple in 2020 over Apple’s control of iOS app distribution and payments. After a bench trial, the district court largely ruled for Apple on Epic’s federal antitrust claims but found Apple’s anti-steering provisions unlawful under California’s Unfair Competition Law. The resulting injunction barred Apple from preventing developers from communicating with customers about alternative purchasing mechanisms.
That relief did not generally require Apple to permit alternative app stores or eliminate in-app purchasing. It addressed developers’ ability to use links, buttons, or other calls to action to direct users to outside payment options. The distinction matters: the contempt ruling enforces the anti-steering injunction; it is not a blanket judgment that Apple’s entire App Store model is unlawful.
Windows 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 reinstallOutdated 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 matchBest 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 civil contempt means here
The Ninth Circuit affirmed civil contempt, not a criminal-contempt conviction. Civil contempt is a court’s means of enforcing compliance with an order or, in appropriate circumstances, compensating for losses. The opinion says the district court’s finding was supported by clear and convincing evidence and that the court did not abuse its discretion.
The district court had referred Apple to federal prosecutors for possible criminal-contempt review, as contemporaneous reporting noted. That referral is separate from the appellate decision and is not a criminal conviction: Reuters report republished by Investing.com, December 11, 2025.
Who the injunction reaches
Apple argued that the injunction should be limited to Epic. The Ninth Circuit rejected that position, leaving in place an order whose practical obligations concern Apple’s App Store rules and developers generally. That does not mean every developer automatically receives identical commercial treatment in every circumstance; the applicable rules and implementation remain relevant.
Apple also argued that the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, Inc. undermined the injunction as impermissibly nationwide. The Ninth Circuit rejected Apple’s argument. That ruling addresses the scope of this injunction under the argument presented; it should not be generalized into a rule that every injunction affecting an app platform is nationwide or worldwide.
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitchesFind Drivers →What the ruling means for developers and users
- External-payment links remain protected by the injunction. Apple cannot evade the order by formally allowing a link while imposing barriers that defeat its purpose.
- Apple’s take on linked-out digital purchases is unsettled. The court did not set a replacement commission or authorize automatic reinstatement of the 27% charge.
- Practical effects depend on the remand. The district court must revise parts of the sanctions order, and implementation details may affect how developers use external links.
- No automatic shift to outside payments follows. The ruling concerns the ability to steer customers, not a requirement that developers or users abandon Apple’s in-app purchasing system.
What happens next
On remand, the district court must modify the portions of the April 2025 sanctions order that the Ninth Circuit found overbroad or improperly structured. The remaining questions include which restrictions can stand in narrower form and whether Apple can justify a reasonable fee for linked-out transactions. The appellate ruling itself does not establish a final rate or a completed implementation schedule. Either side may also pursue further review, but the opinion alone does not establish whether that will happen.
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.
