Apple just lost big in its appeal of a scathing contempt ruling from the Epic Games case. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed with Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers that Apple willfully violated a 2021 injunction, acted in bad faith, and deliberately tried to maintain its revenue stream through anticompetitive conduct. The three-judge panel wasn’t buying Apple’s excuses about attorney-client privilege, procedural issues, or claims that it tried to comply. They saw through the entire charade. But buried in the decision is one small win for Apple: the court said they might be able to charge “reasonable” fees for external purchases. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney is celebrating, but warning iOS developers are still afraid of Apple’s “totally illegal” retaliation.
What the Court Actually Said
The appeals court opinion is brutal in its assessment of Apple’s behavior. The judges agreed that while “Apple asserted compliance with the injunction, it instead barred developers from employing buttons, links, and other action prompts without incurring a substantial commission to Apple, and it constrained the design of developers’ links, complicating customer access.” That’s legal language for “Apple made a mockery of the judge’s order and we’re not fooled.”
The court specifically found that Apple acted in bad faith by neglecting to adhere to the injunction and dismissing feasible, compliant alternatives during internal discussions. This wasn’t accidental noncompliance or misunderstanding the order. Apple knew exactly what it was doing and chose defiance anyway. The court wasn’t persuaded by Apple’s arguments about procedural issues or attorney-client privilege either, asserting the district court appropriately assessed documents Apple tried to hide.
The Original Contempt Ruling Was Savage
Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ April ruling that sparked this appeal was one of the most scathing judicial rebukes in recent tech history. She wrote that “Apple’s response to the Injunction strains credulity” and that after evidentiary hearings, “the truth emerged. Apple, despite knowing its obligations thereunder, thwarted the Injunction’s goals, and continued its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream.”
The judge detailed how Apple executives understood the injunction but deliberately chose to violate it anyway. Phil Schiller, Apple’s senior VP, reportedly opposed the 27% commission Apple wanted to charge on external purchases because he understood it violated the court order. But Tim Cook ignored Schiller and let CFO Luca Maestri and the finance team convince him to charge the fee anyway. Gonzalez Rogers’ verdict on that decision? “Cook chose poorly.”
The Bad Faith Finding Matters
Finding a party acted in “bad faith” in contempt proceedings is serious. It means Apple didn’t just fail to comply through confusion or misinterpretation. They deliberately chose noncompliance while pretending to follow the rules. The appeals court’s agreement with this finding validates everything Epic and other developers have been saying: Apple will do anything to protect its App Store revenue, including openly defying federal court orders.
Gonzalez Rogers even referred Apple’s conduct to federal prosecutors for potential criminal contempt inquiry. That’s extraordinary. Civil contempt is about forcing compliance. Criminal contempt is about punishing willful disobedience of court authority. While no criminal charges have been filed, the fact that a federal judge considered Apple’s behavior worthy of criminal investigation speaks volumes.
Apple’s Malicious Compliance Playbook
The original 2021 injunction required Apple to stop blocking developers from informing users about cheaper payment options outside the App Store. Apple’s response was textbook malicious compliance. They technically allowed external payment links but made them as unappealing and difficult as possible. The tactics included charging a 27% commission on external transactions (barely less than the 30% in-app fee), requiring links be plain text instead of buttons, and displaying a full-screen scary warning whenever users clicked external links.
According to court documents, Apple’s internal discussions revealed executives knew these restrictions violated the spirit and letter of the injunction. They implemented them anyway, calculating that the billions in revenue were worth the legal risk. That calculation failed spectacularly when Gonzalez Rogers saw through it and the appeals court agreed.
The One Small Apple Win
Buried in the appeals court decision is Apple’s only victory: the panel suggested Judge Gonzalez Rogers explore alternatives that would enable Apple to impose “reasonable fees” for purchases made through external links. Her April order had completely banned Apple from charging any commission on external purchases. The appeals court thinks that might be too harsh and wants the district court to consider what “reasonable” means in this context.
This is the opening Apple needed. They’ll argue that providing iOS infrastructure, payment processing alternatives, and App Store discovery justifies substantial fees even for external purchases. Epic and other developers will counter that any fee defeats the purpose of the injunction, which was to allow price competition free from Apple’s extraction. The district court will have to determine where “reasonable” falls on that spectrum.
What Reasonable Might Mean
In other contexts, courts have found platform fees ranging from zero to around 15% reasonable depending on services provided. Google Play charges 15% for most developers. Payment processors like Stripe charge around 3%. Apple’s 27% commission was clearly unreasonable because it was deliberately set just below the 30% in-app fee to maintain their revenue while technically complying with the letter of the injunction.
A truly reasonable fee would compensate Apple for genuine costs: hosting the app, providing updates, security review, and discoverability. It wouldn’t include massive profit margins designed to discourage external payments. Whether Judge Gonzalez Rogers will be generous to Apple after they repeatedly lied to her court remains to be seen. Her April ruling suggests she’s out of patience with Cupertino’s games.
Tim Sweeney’s Victory Lap
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney celebrated the appeals court decision but warned the fight isn’t over. He’s been tweeting that iOS developers remain afraid of Apple’s “totally illegal” retaliation tactics. Even though the court orders are clear, Apple has a history of finding ways to punish developers who don’t play ball. That fear keeps many from actually implementing external payment options despite having the legal right.
Sweeney has also celebrated that Fortnite is finally returning to iOS in the US after nearly five years. The contempt ruling forced Apple to actually allow external payments without prohibitive restrictions, making it economically viable for Epic to bring Fortnite back. This was always the endgame: not just winning legal principles but actually changing Apple’s behavior enough to make alternative payment methods work in practice.
The EU Parallel
While this case covers the US, similar battles are playing out in Europe. The EU’s Digital Markets Act forced Apple to allow third-party app stores and payment systems, but Apple’s implementation has been criticized as malicious compliance there too. The European Commission is investigating whether Apple’s DMA compliance actually meets the law’s requirements. Apple’s global strategy seems to be: make forced changes as painful as possible so developers don’t actually use them.
The difference is that US courts are directly calling out this strategy as contempt and bad faith. European regulators can fine Apple, but federal judges can hold executives personally liable for contempt. That escalation might finally force genuine compliance rather than continued gamesmanship.
What Happens Next
The case goes back to Judge Gonzalez Rogers to determine what “reasonable” fees Apple can charge for external purchases. This will involve more hearings, more evidence, and probably more revelations about Apple’s internal decision-making. Given how unimpressed she was with Apple’s conduct in her April ruling, don’t expect her to be generous with what counts as reasonable.
Apple could theoretically appeal to the Supreme Court, but they already tried that with the original Epic case and the Court refused to hear it. The legal principles are largely settled. The only remaining question is implementation details like fee structures. Unless something dramatic changes, Apple will have to actually comply with the anti-steering injunction in meaningful ways.
The Bigger Picture
This case matters beyond just Epic and Apple. It establishes precedent that platform holders can’t use malicious compliance to avoid antitrust remedies. When courts order changes to anticompetitive practices, companies can’t technically follow the letter while violating the spirit. Judges will look at internal documents, catch lies, and impose serious consequences for bad faith noncompliance.
For developers, the ruling means anti-steering provisions are actually enforceable now. Apple can’t scare them away with ominous warnings or punitive commissions. They can link to external payment options, explain why they’re cheaper, and actually compete on price. That’s what the original 2021 injunction intended, and it only took four years of litigation and multiple contempt findings to make Apple actually do it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Did Apple win or lose the appeal?
Apple mostly lost. The Ninth Circuit upheld the contempt finding and agreed Apple acted in bad faith. However, the court gave Apple a small opening to potentially charge “reasonable” fees for external purchases.
What was Apple found in contempt for?
Willfully violating a 2021 injunction that required them to stop blocking developers from informing users about cheaper payment options outside the App Store. Apple implemented tactics designed to discourage external payments while technically claiming compliance.
What did the appeals court say about Apple’s conduct?
The court agreed Apple acted in bad faith, barred developers from using buttons and links without substantial commissions, and constrained link designs to complicate customer access. They saw through Apple’s claimed compliance.
Can Apple still charge fees on external purchases?
Maybe. The appeals court said Judge Gonzalez Rogers should explore whether Apple can charge “reasonable” fees. What counts as reasonable will be determined in future proceedings.
Is Fortnite coming back to iOS?
Yes. Epic has said Fortnite will return to iOS in the US now that Apple is forced to actually allow meaningful external payment options without prohibitive restrictions.
What was the 27% commission?
Apple tried to charge 27% on external purchases made through links in iOS apps. This was barely less than their 30% in-app fee and was designed to discourage developers from using external payments. Courts found this violated the injunction.
Can Apple appeal to the Supreme Court?
Possibly, but unlikely to succeed. The Supreme Court already refused to hear the original Epic case. The current dispute is mostly about implementation details rather than core legal principles.
Why does this matter for developers?
It means anti-steering provisions are actually enforceable. Developers can inform users about external payment options without Apple imposing punitive restrictions. This enables actual price competition.
The Billion Dollar Tantrum
Apple’s entire strategy in this case has been a multi-billion dollar tantrum. They lost the original Epic case on anti-steering provisions in 2021. Instead of accepting that loss gracefully, they spent years implementing the most restrictive possible interpretation they could get away with. When caught lying to the court about their internal deliberations, they doubled down. When found in contempt, they appealed. At every stage, Apple chose defiance over compliance.
The contempt finding and this appeals court decision represent judicial patience finally running out. Federal judges don’t like being lied to. They especially don’t like companies openly defying their orders while claiming compliance. Apple bet that its legal and financial resources could outlast judicial frustration. That bet failed.
What makes this particularly satisfying for Apple critics is watching the company’s own internal documents be used against them. Executive emails showing they knew they were violating court orders but chose profit over compliance. Those smoking guns transformed this from a dispute over legal interpretation into proof of willful misconduct. You can’t claim good faith when your own executives admit in writing they’re ignoring feasible alternatives because those alternatives hurt revenue.
The question now is whether Apple finally learns that courts mean what they say, or whether we get another few years of malicious compliance and contempt proceedings. Given the company’s behavior so far, smart money is on continued resistance dressed up as compliance. But at least now there’s legal precedent that judges will actually hold them accountable rather than accepting corporate word games as sufficient.