Epic’s lawsuit argued that several Apple rules restrict competition in the mobile app ecosystem, including:

• Limiting app distribution on iOS devices to Apple’s App Store
• Requiring developers to use Apple’s in‑app payment processor for digital purchases
• Restricting developers from directing users to alternative payment options outside the app

Epic claimed these policies effectively locked developers into Apple’s ecosystem and limited their ability to offer competing payment systems or communicate alternatives to users.

Why Epic sued Apple in 2020

The dispute began in August 2020, when Epic deliberately added its own payment option to Fortnite on iOS to bypass Apple’s payment system. Apple removed the game from the App Store, and Epic immediately filed an antitrust lawsuit challenging Apple’s policies.

Epic’s broader goal was to weaken Apple’s control over transactions on iPhones and allow developers more freedom in how they distribute apps and process payments.

What the 2021 court ruling required Apple to change

After a bench trial, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a permanent injunction in 2021 addressing Apple’s “anti‑steering” rules.

The court ordered Apple to stop prohibiting developers from:

• Including buttons, links, or other calls to action directing users to alternative purchasing systems
• Communicating with customers about other purchasing options using contact information collected through the app

In practice, this meant developers had to be allowed to link users to external payment systems instead of being forced to rely solely on Apple’s in‑app purchase system.

Although the court rejected many of Epic’s broader antitrust claims, the anti‑steering ruling forced Apple to loosen App Store rules related to payment links.

Why Apple was later held in civil contempt

The legal fight did not end with the 2021 decision. Epic argued that Apple’s implementation of the injunction still undermined its purpose.

Courts later found that Apple imposed restrictions and commissions that discouraged developers from using external payment links. For example, Apple charged substantial commissions on purchases made after users clicked external links from apps.

In 2025, a U.S. district court ruled that Apple had violated the earlier injunction and held the company in civil contempt. The court concluded that Apple’s policies effectively prevented developers from meaningfully using external purchasing options, contradicting the order’s intent.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit later affirmed the contempt finding in part, while modifying some aspects of the sanctions and sending parts of the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

Why Apple has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case

Apple has now asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the latest rulings in the dispute.

The company argues that lower courts wrongly held it in contempt and that the injunction governing App Store payment rules has been interpreted too broadly. One key question is whether Apple can legally charge commissions on purchases made outside the App Store after users follow links from apps.

Apple has sought a pause on some proceedings while it asks the Supreme Court to step in and clarify the scope of the injunction and the limits of Apple’s ability to monetize external purchases.

Why the case matters for the tech industry

The Apple‑Epic battle has become a landmark case for the digital economy. Its outcomes could influence:

• How app stores regulate payments and developer communication
• Whether platform owners can require proprietary payment systems
• How much control large tech companies have over software ecosystems

Because the case touches on competition, platform governance, and developer economics, its final resolution — potentially by the Supreme Court — could shape the rules of the global app marketplace for years to come.

Epic’s lawsuit argued that several Apple rules restrict competition in the mobile app ecosystem, including:

• Limiting app distribution on iOS devices to Apple’s App Store
• Requiring developers to use Apple’s in‑app payment processor for digital purchases
• Restricting developers from directing users to alternative payment options outside the app

Epic claimed these policies effectively locked developers into Apple’s ecosystem and limited their ability to offer competing payment systems or communicate alternatives to users.

Why Epic sued Apple in 2020

The dispute began in August 2020, when Epic deliberately added its own payment option to Fortnite on iOS to bypass Apple’s payment system. Apple removed the game from the App Store, and Epic immediately filed an antitrust lawsuit challenging Apple’s policies.

Epic’s broader goal was to weaken Apple’s control over transactions on iPhones and allow developers more freedom in how they distribute apps and process payments.

What the 2021 court ruling required Apple to change

After a bench trial, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued a permanent injunction in 2021 addressing Apple’s “anti‑steering” rules.

The court ordered Apple to stop prohibiting developers from:

• Including buttons, links, or other calls to action directing users to alternative purchasing systems
• Communicating with customers about other purchasing options using contact information collected through the app

In practice, this meant developers had to be allowed to link users to external payment systems instead of being forced to rely solely on Apple’s in‑app purchase system.

Although the court rejected many of Epic’s broader antitrust claims, the anti‑steering ruling forced Apple to loosen App Store rules related to payment links.

Why Apple was later held in civil contempt

The legal fight did not end with the 2021 decision. Epic argued that Apple’s implementation of the injunction still undermined its purpose.

Courts later found that Apple imposed restrictions and commissions that discouraged developers from using external payment links. For example, Apple charged substantial commissions on purchases made after users clicked external links from apps.

In 2025, a U.S. district court ruled that Apple had violated the earlier injunction and held the company in civil contempt. The court concluded that Apple’s policies effectively prevented developers from meaningfully using external purchasing options, contradicting the order’s intent.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit later affirmed the contempt finding in part, while modifying some aspects of the sanctions and sending parts of the case back to the lower court for further proceedings.

Why Apple has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case

Apple has now asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the latest rulings in the dispute.

The company argues that lower courts wrongly held it in contempt and that the injunction governing App Store payment rules has been interpreted too broadly. One key question is whether Apple can legally charge commissions on purchases made outside the App Store after users follow links from apps.

Apple has sought a pause on some proceedings while it asks the Supreme Court to step in and clarify the scope of the injunction and the limits of Apple’s ability to monetize external purchases.

Why the case matters for the tech industry

The Apple‑Epic battle has become a landmark case for the digital economy. Its outcomes could influence:

• How app stores regulate payments and developer communication
• Whether platform owners can require proprietary payment systems
• How much control large tech companies have over software ecosystems

Because the case touches on competition, platform governance, and developer economics, its final resolution — potentially by the Supreme Court — could shape the rules of the global app marketplace for years to come.