The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Apple’s appeal in its dispute with Epic Games, upholding most of a prior contempt finding on App Store fees while reversing restrictions on commissions for third-party payments. This stems from ongoing litigation over Apple’s payment system controls.
In 2021, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to permit third-party payment systems on its App Store. Her decision required Apple to allow developers to direct users to external payment options without blocking links or buttons, though she stopped short of classifying Apple’s App Store dominance as a monopoly. This ruling addressed concerns raised in Epic Games’ lawsuit accusing Apple of anticompetitive practices through its exclusive in-app payment requirements.
Epic v Google ends in deal expanding Android app freedom
By May 2025, Judge Gonzalez Rogers determined that Apple’s imposition of a 27 percent commission on transactions processed through these external payment systems directly contravened her 2021 order. The judge viewed this fee structure as an attempt by Apple to maintain revenue control despite the allowance of alternative payments. In response, Apple immediately submitted an emergency motion to the court seeking to overturn this latest finding and suspend its enforcement pending further review.
During the extended legal proceedings, Epic Games withdrew its popular game Fortnite from both the Apple App Store and Google Play Store in protest against the platform fees and restrictions. This removal occurred as Epic challenged the billing mandates that required a 30 percent cut on in-app purchases. Fortnite made a comeback to iOS devices in the spring of 2025 following partial resolutions in the case.
On the same day as the appellate decision, Fortnite became available again on Android devices through the Google Play Store. The 9th Circuit’s panel of judges affirmed the lower court’s contempt ruling, which held Apple accountable for levying fees on third-party systems in violation of the initial injunction. Specifically, the appeals court confirmed that Apple’s practices breached the order to facilitate external payments without undue financial penalties.
However, the appellate judges overturned the provision that prohibited Apple from imposing any commissions whatsoever on purchases made via these outside payment methods. This reversal permits Apple to continue applying its commission rates to external transactions, aligning with one of the company’s primary contentions in the appeal that it retains the right to monetize services provided through its platform ecosystem.
