Apple’s long fight with Epic Games over how money moves through the iPhone has reached a new phase, and the company is coming out of this round more bruised than triumphant. A federal appeals court has largely upheld a blistering contempt finding against Apple, tightening the screws on how it must open iOS to outside payment options while still allowing some commission on those transactions. The result is a rare moment when one of the world’s most powerful platform owners is being told, in no uncertain terms, that its preferred way of doing business crossed a legal line.
The ruling does not hand Epic Games everything it wanted, and Apple has clawed back a few important concessions, especially around its ability to keep charging developers. But the core message from the judiciary is clear: Apple pushed too far in trying to preserve the App Store status quo, and now it has to live with a more constrained, more contested future for payments on the iPhone.
How the Epic–Apple war reached a breaking point
The latest decision only makes sense against the backdrop of a years-long clash over who controls the economics of mobile software. Epic Games, the company behind Fortnite, set out to challenge Apple’s insistence that in-app purchases on iOS flow through its own system, with Apple taking a cut that critics dubbed the “Apple tax.” That fight escalated when Epic tried to route Fortnite players to cheaper payment options, Apple kicked the game out of the App Store, and the dispute landed in front of District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who would become the central figure in the legal saga.
Earlier this year, District Court Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a scathing judgment that found Apple in “willful noncompliance” with her prior orders to loosen its grip on iOS payments, after internal discussions at Apple focused on how to preserve the “Apple tax” rather than how to design compliant alternatives. That contempt finding, described in detail in a ruling that Epic hailed as the end of the Apple tax, set the stage for Apple’s appeal and for the Ninth Circuit’s decision on whether the company had gone too far in resisting the court’s mandate.
What the Ninth Circuit actually decided
On appeal, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal largely sided with the trial judge, affirming that Apple’s conduct amounted to civil contempt in the Epic Games Battle and that the company had defied clear instructions to allow alternative iPhone payment options. The panel agreed that Apple’s implementation of so-called “link-out” rules, which technically allowed developers to point users to external payment sites while surrounding that option with friction and deterrents, did not satisfy the spirit of the injunction. In practical terms, the court concluded that Apple had tried to preserve its old business model under a thin veneer of compliance.
The appellate panel’s decision, described as the Ninth Circuit Affirms Apple Contempt Finding in the Epic Games Battle, underscores that Apple cannot simply comply on paper while designing its rules to keep developers locked into its preferred system. By backing the contempt finding, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal signaled that platform owners will be judged on the real-world impact of their policies, not just the legalistic wording of their guidelines, and it left Apple facing potential sanctions and tighter oversight as the case returns to the district court.
Why Apple was found in contempt
The contempt ruling turns on a simple but consequential idea: when a court orders a company to stop blocking competition, the company cannot respond by inventing new obstacles that achieve the same effect. Judge Gonzalez Rogers had previously ordered Apple to let developers steer users to external payment options, a change that was supposed to give apps more leverage over fees and pricing. Instead, Apple designed rules that technically allowed links but wrapped them in restrictions, disclosures, and design choices that discouraged users from ever clicking away from Apple’s own system.
In its review, the Ninth Circuit agreed that this approach crossed the line into civil contempt, affirming that Apple’s policies on alternative iPhone payment options violated the earlier injunction in a way that harmed video game maker Epic Games and other developers. A summary of the decision notes that the Ninth Circuit backed the finding that Apple’s behavior was not a good-faith attempt to comply but a calculated effort to maintain control over how money flows through the App Store, even after the court had ordered a more open approach.
The narrow win Apple did secure
For all the criticism Apple absorbed, the company did manage to salvage one crucial piece of its business model: the ability to charge some commission on purchases that happen through third-party payment systems. The appeals court did not accept Epic’s argument that any fee on external transactions would violate California law, and it left room for the district court to approve a structure where Apple still collects revenue when users follow a link from an iOS app to an outside payment page. That nuance is why Apple can claim it did not lose everything, even as it faces a contempt finding.
Reporting on the decision notes that Apple will be allowed to charge commission on purchases from third-party payment systems and that Apple has clawed back a measure of control over how those payments are structured, even as it prepares to bring Fortnite back on Android devices and navigates a more contested environment on iOS. The appeals panel’s willingness to let Apple keep some commission, described in coverage that explains how Apple has clawed back a limited victory, means the company still has a path to monetize transactions it does not directly process, though it will have to convince the district court that any new fee structure is reasonable and compliant.
Epic’s next move and Tim Sweeney’s leverage
Epic Games is treating the contempt ruling as validation of its long-running campaign to pry open the App Store, but it is not ready to accept any compromise that looks like the old Apple tax in new clothing. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney has made clear that he wants a world where developers can negotiate a reasonable rate with Apple instead of being forced into a one-size-fits-all percentage, and he has signaled that Epic will not simply agree to a new commission scheme that mirrors the status quo. That stance gives Epic leverage as the case returns to the trial court for decisions on remedies and potential sanctions.
The actual text of the full ruling describes a future commission on external payments as “one possibility,” and it leaves the district court to determine how any such fee would work in practice and what rate would be acceptable. Coverage of Epic’s reaction notes that Epic CEO Sweeney still wants Apple and developers to arrive at a reasonable rate between them and that Epic Games signals it will not agree to percentage App Store fees that replicate the old model, a position detailed in analysis of how Epic Games signals it will approach the next phase of negotiations.
How the contempt finding reshapes Apple’s power
The contempt finding does more than embarrass Apple; it chips away at the aura of unassailable control the company has long projected over its platform. For years, Apple has argued that tight control over payments and distribution is essential to security and privacy on the iPhone, and that developers benefit from a curated ecosystem even if they chafe at the fees. The Ninth Circuit’s decision reframes that narrative by treating Apple’s rules not as neutral safety measures but as levers of market power that can be abused when they shut down legitimate competition.
In its summary of the decision, one report notes that the appellate panel agreed with the trial court that Apple’s policies made it unreasonably difficult for users to make purchases through external sites, and that this justified a contempt finding in the Epic Games battle. By confirming that Apple’s conduct warranted sanctions, the Ninth Circuit has effectively told Apple that its platform rules will be scrutinized not just for technical compliance but for how they affect real-world competition, a shift that could influence future disputes over everything from streaming apps to cloud gaming services.
Apple’s public response and damage control
Publicly, Apple is not conceding defeat, even as the legal scorecard tilts against it. The company has emphasized that it “strongly disagrees” with the contempt finding and is exploring its options, a familiar posture for a firm that rarely admits error in public. At the same time, Apple is signaling to investors and developers that it can adapt its policies without sacrificing the core economics of the App Store, pointing to the appeals court’s recognition that some commission on external payments may be permissible.
In a televised segment, an Apple spokesperson told Carl that Apple “strongly disagrees” with the Epic Games decision that came out the previous night, underscoring the company’s view that its policies are justified and that it has complied with the law. That exchange, captured in a video where the spokesperson discusses how Apple and Epic are framing the outcome, illustrates Apple’s strategy of contesting the narrative even as it prepares to adjust its rules under court supervision, a balancing act aimed at reassuring both regulators and the developers who depend on its platform.
Why this matters beyond Apple and Epic
The implications of the ruling extend far beyond a single game or a single platform. Developers of subscription apps like Spotify, Netflix, and productivity tools such as Notion or 1Password have long complained that platform fees distort pricing and limit their ability to offer discounts or bundles directly to users. A legal precedent that treats aggressive platform rules as potential violations of state law, and that upholds a contempt finding when a company tries to dodge an injunction, gives those developers new arguments in their own negotiations and potential disputes.
One analysis of the decision notes that Apple loses appeal of the contempt ruling in its App Store fight with Epic and that the court found Apple’s conduct in violation of California law, a conclusion that could resonate in other cases involving digital marketplaces. By framing Apple’s behavior as a violation of state law rather than a mere contractual disagreement, the ruling described in coverage of how Apple loses appeal sends a signal to other gatekeepers, from mobile platforms to game console makers, that their fee structures and steering rules may face similar scrutiny if they are seen as blocking fair competition.
How commentators and the tech world are reading the outcome
Among tech watchers, the consensus is that Apple mostly lost this round, even if it preserved a narrow path to keep charging developers. Commentators have framed the decision as a turning point in the broader debate over platform power, noting that courts are increasingly willing to look past polished compliance narratives and focus on whether users and developers actually gain new choices. The fact that Apple, a company famous for its meticulous legal and policy planning, ended up in civil contempt underscores how aggressively it pushed to defend the App Store’s traditional economics.
One detailed breakdown of the decision characterizes it as a case where Apple Mostly Loses in Its Epic Games Appeal, while also noting other tech developments such as OpenAI releasing GPT 5.2 and teasing an Adult Mode arriving in the future. That commentary, presented under the banner Apple, Mostly, Loses, Its Epic Games Appeal, DTNS, captures the mood among analysts who see the ruling as a meaningful check on Apple’s power even if the company retains some ability to charge fees, a perspective laid out in coverage of how Apple Mostly Loses in its Epic Games appeal.
What comes next for iOS payments and platform regulation
The next phase of the Epic–Apple saga will unfold back in Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ courtroom, where the district court will decide how to enforce the contempt finding and what kind of fee structure, if any, Apple can impose on external payments. That process will determine whether developers gain a genuinely competitive alternative to Apple’s in-app purchase system or whether they simply trade one mandatory fee for another. The court’s willingness to scrutinize the practical impact of Apple’s rules suggests that any new policy will have to be more than a cosmetic tweak.
At the same time, regulators and lawmakers who have been circling the big platforms will be watching closely. The contempt ruling, the affirmation by the Ninth Circuit, and the detailed findings about how Apple’s policies affected Epic Games and other developers provide a roadmap for future challenges to dominant app stores and digital marketplaces. As the legal dust settles, Apple will still be a powerful gatekeeper, but it will be operating in a world where its decisions about payments, steering, and commissions are no longer insulated by the assumption that what is good for the platform is automatically good for everyone else.
More from MorningOverview