A U.S. federal judge has ruled that the tech giant willfully violated a court injunction intended to curb its anticompetitive practices within the App Store. The decision marks a partial victory for Fortnite developer Epic Games, which first filed its high-profile antitrust lawsuit against Apple in 2020.
Epic’s lawsuit challenged Apple’s tight grip over its App Store ecosystem, particularly its mandatory use of Apple’s payment system for in-app purchases a system that collected commissions ranging from 15% to 30%. Epic accused Apple of maintaining an illegal monopoly that stifled competition and innovation.
Although U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers dismissed the monopoly claim in her 2021 ruling, she still found Apple guilty of anticompetitive conduct. The judge issued an injunction that required Apple to allow app developers to direct users to alternative payment options outside the App Store—breaking the exclusivity Apple once enjoyed.
However, on Wednesday, Judge Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in contempt for failing to comply with that order. “Apple’s continued attempts to interfere with competition will not be tolerated,” she said. The court’s latest ruling makes clear that Apple cannot obstruct developers from including external links or buttons that lead to alternative payment methods, nor can it impose new fees or commissions on such transactions.
The judge’s rebuke underscores Apple’s efforts to preserve its lucrative App Store business model despite regulatory and legal scrutiny. By not fully adhering to the original injunction, Apple was found to have acted in bad faith, continuing to exert undue control over how developers interact with users.
The ruling is expected to ripple across the tech and developer communities, strengthening calls for more open digital marketplaces. For Epic Games and other developers, it represents a crucial step toward greater independence and flexibility in monetizing their content without excessive fees.
Apple has not yet indicated whether it will appeal the contempt finding, but the decision sets a precedent that could influence future regulatory actions against dominant digital platforms worldwide.
