A Federal Judge Rules Apple Violated the Epic Games Injunction

On April 30, 2025, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a sharply worded order in Epic Games v. Apple. The judge found that Apple had violated the permanent injunction she issued in 2021 after the original bench trial. In that earlier ruling, the court concluded that Apple was not a monopolist under federal antitrust law, but it did find that Apple’s anti-steering rules violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. The injunction required Apple to let developers communicate with users about alternative payment methods outside the App Store. Apple responded by allowing external links, but it also imposed a 27% commission on purchases made through those links, with a 12% rate for some small-business developers, and required warnings that steered users away. Epic argued that this was not compliance but a workaround. Judge Rogers agreed, calling Apple’s conduct a blatant violation and stating that Apple had not complied in good faith. She barred Apple from charging any commission on external-link purchases, restricted its ability to impose warnings or design limits, and referred the matter to federal prosecutors for possible contempt review. Apple said it would appeal. The ruling is a landmark moment in Epic’s long campaign against mobile app store fees and anti-steering rules.

Apple’s 27% Commission and “Scare Screens” Are Struck Down

The most financially significant part of the ruling concerns Apple’s 27% commission. For years, Apple has argued that its commission reflects the value of the App Store, including distribution, security, privacy, and payment infrastructure. When the 2021 injunction forced Apple to permit external links, the company tried to preserve its revenue by charging a reduced but still substantial fee on transactions that took place outside its in-app purchase system. It also displayed what critics called “scare screens,” warning users that external purchases were not protected by Apple and could expose them to fraud or privacy risks. Judge Rogers found that these measures undermined the purpose of the injunction, which was to reduce anti-competitive restrictions and let developers inform users about cheaper options. Her order prohibits Apple from collecting any commission or fee on purchases made through external links in the United States. It also stops Apple from requiring specific warning language, limiting the types of links developers may use, or making the external purchase path more cumbersome than necessary. Apple is expected to seek a stay pending appeal, and the company has said it disagrees with the decision. Still, the ruling directly attacks the commission model that has made the App Store one of Apple’s most profitable services.

What the Ruling Means for Developers, Consumers, and Competition

For developers, the immediate practical effect could be enormous. Apps that sell subscriptions, virtual goods, digital content, or premium features may now be able to send users to a web checkout without losing 15% to 30% to Apple. That could improve margins for large companies such as Spotify, Netflix, and Epic Games, but it could also help smaller independent developers who cannot easily absorb app-store fees. Consumers may eventually see lower prices, promotional offers, or more flexible payment options, although those benefits will depend on how developers pass savings along and whether Apple succeeds in delaying the order. The ruling does not, by itself, require Apple to allow third-party app stores or sideloading on iPhones in the United States. It is narrower than the changes imposed in the European Union under the Digital Markets Act, where Apple has already been forced to permit alternative marketplaces and payment options. Even so, the decision cracks a central pillar of the walled garden: the control of payments and communication between developers and customers. Some developers may still prefer Apple’s in-app purchase system for convenience and trust, but they will now have more leverage to negotiate or route users elsewhere. It also gives regulators and plaintiffs in other countries a powerful new precedent to cite.

Google Play, Global Regulators, and the Next App Store Battle

Epic’s battle is not limited to Apple. In Epic Games v. Google, a jury found in December 2023 that Google Play and Google’s billing system illegally monopolized Android app distribution and payments. In October 2024, Judge James Donato ordered sweeping remedies, including allowing rival app stores and alternative billing systems within Google Play for three years. Google appealed, and the injunction was stayed pending review, so Android users have not yet seen the full changes take effect. If the appeal upholds the remedy, it could open Android more dramatically than the Apple ruling opens iOS. Meanwhile, regulators in the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, and elsewhere are examining app-store fees, self-preferencing, and restrictions on alternative payments. Apple and Google both argue that their systems protect users and support investment, but courts and lawmakers are increasingly skeptical. Epic’s latest victory will not end the app-store wars. Apple is likely to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and the case could eventually reach the Supreme Court. Still, the direction is clear: the traditional model in which mobile platforms control distribution and payments is under serious legal pressure.