Ninth Circuit Upholds Key Parts of Apple’s App Store Policies but Orders Changes

In a long-awaited decision, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals largely affirmed the district court’s earlier ruling in Epic Games v. Apple, but with a crucial twist: it upheld the injunction requiring Apple to allow developers to add buttons, links, or other calls-to-action that direct users to external payment methods. The court rejected Apple’s argument that its anti-steering rule was a legitimate business practice, instead agreeing with the lower court that it violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. However, the panel declined to declare Apple a monopolist under federal antitrust law, agreeing that Epic had failed to prove a relevant market definition that would include only iOS game transactions. The decision is a mixed outcome, but the practical effect is that Apple can no longer prohibit developers like Epic from telling users about cheaper payment options outside the App Store. Apple’s 30% commission remains intact for transactions processed through its system, but the forced information barrier has been struck down. This creates immediate pressure on Apple to redesign its App Store guidelines to comply with the injunction, and it provides a legal foundation for similar challenges in other jurisdictions, including the European Union’s Digital Markets Act.

Epic Games Wins Major Ruling as Court Finds Apple’s Anti-Steering Rules Unlawful

The core of the appellate court’s reasoning centered on the so-called “anti-steering” provisions in Apple’s developer agreements. These provisions prohibited developers from informing users about payment alternatives, even when those alternatives offered lower prices. The court found that this conduct was anticompetitive because it prevented consumer choice and limited price competition in the iOS app distribution market. While the court did not go so far as to rule that Apple held monopoly power in a broader sense, it did note that Apple has “substantial market power” and that its conduct “undermines consumer welfare.” The ruling is a pragmatic compromise: it preserves Apple’s ability to operate its closed ecosystem and charge commission fees, but it dismantles the information blackout that had kept millions of iPhone users unaware of cheaper options. For Epic, the victory is symbolic and tactical. It did not win the right to use its own payment processor inside Fortnite, but it won a legal precedent that can be leveraged in future battles. The court’s language is particularly strong in stating that “Apple’s anti-steering restrictions are not necessary to protect user security or privacy,” a point that directly rebuts Apple’s most common defense in antitrust cases worldwide.

What This Antitrust Decision Means for Developers and the Future of Digital Marketplaces

For the broader developer community, this ruling is a watershed moment. Any app developer who sells digital goods or services can now legally include a link to their own website for payment purposes, as long as they don’t secretly bypass Apple’s in-app purchase system within the app itself. This means that subscription apps, streaming services, and games can finally say “subscribe on our website for a lower price” inside the app. In practice, many developers are expected to display side-by-side pricing comparisons, driving users to external web pages where they can avoid Apple’s commission. This could lead to a slow but steady erosion of Apple’s revenue from its services segment, which has become a major profit driver. However, the court also upheld the district court’s finding that Apple is not a monopolist in the smartphone market, meaning that Apple cannot be forced to allow alternative app stores on iOS in the United States. Thus, the ruling creates a strange new equilibrium: Apple maintains its exclusive storefront, but developers gain the right to advertise outside channels. This hybrid model has already been tested in other countries, such as the Netherlands and South Korea, where regulators forced similar changes. The long-term consequence is likely a patchwork of differing rules depending on geography, with the U.S. now joining a global trend toward curbing the most restrictive terms imposed by platform gatekeepers.

The Fortnite Maker Secures a Narrow but Powerful Legal Victory Over App Store Fees

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney hailed the ruling as “a win for developers and consumers worldwide,” though he also admitted it was “not the full victory we sought.” The case began in 2020 when Epic deliberately bypassed Apple’s payment system in Fortnite, adding a direct payment option that violated App Store rules. Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, prompting Epic to file an antitrust lawsuit. The district court initially ruled in favor of Apple on nine out of ten counts, but the single count on anti-steering became the battleground. Now, with the appellate court affirming that one count and upholding the injunction, Epic has a legal tool that Apple must respect. Apple has signaled it may appeal to the Supreme Court, but the immediate effect is that the injunction stands while appellate processes continue. For Epic, the financial stakes are not just about Fortnite; the company has spent years campaigning against what it calls “Apple’s monopoly tax.” Even if the monetary damages are negligible, the precedent is priceless. The ruling also emboldens other large developers, such as Spotify and Netflix, who have long complained about Apple’s commission. By opening a legal pathway to circumvent the 30% fee through external links, the court has effectively given every developer a negotiating lever—either Apple reduces its commission, or developers will actively steer users away from its payment system.