Apple's campaign to defend its control over the App Store is crumbling on multiple fronts. What began as a straightforward business dispute five years ago has metastasised into a global antitrust war that spans continents, involves rival developers, government regulators, and now threatens the company's foundational business model.
The trouble started simply enough. In August 2020, Epic Games intentionally bypassed Apple's in-app payment system by introducing a direct payment option in Fortnite, allowing the company to avoid Apple's standard 30% commission. Apple responded by removing Fortnite from the App Store, prompting Epic to file an antitrust lawsuit.
But Apple's real problems began after it lost. In September 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple's "anti-steering" policy—which prevented developers from informing users about alternative payment options—violated California's competition laws. The judge issued an injunction requiring Apple to allow developers to link users to external payment methods.
Instead of complying, Apple got creative. In April 2025, Judge Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple willfully violated the 2021 injunction, having created a new system that imposed a 27% commission on external purchases and displayed pop-up warnings to discourage users from paying developers directly. The judge referred Apple and an executive to federal prosecutors for possible criminal contempt. Judge Gonzalez Rogers stated that "Apple aimed to preserve a revenue stream valued in the billions, directly defying this court's injunction."
The pattern matters here. Internal Apple documents revealed the company significantly restricted where developers could place payment links, forbade links from appearing where users purchase digital goods, and required only "plain button style" links rather than "developer styled links," which significantly reduced the likelihood consumers would use them. Courts found evidence of deliberate bad faith compliance.
The US situation remains contested. In December 2025, the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the sanctions order but narrowed a few limitations, ruling that Apple may charge a commission on linked-out purchases but only for costs that are "genuinely and reasonably necessary" to coordinate the transaction, and no more. The appeals court preserved the contempt finding and declined to vacate the 2021 order requiring Apple to allow developers to direct users to cheaper off-app payment options.
The European Union has taken a harder line. On April 23, 2025, Apple and Meta were found non-compliant with the Digital Markets Act and fined €500 million and €200 million respectively, and given 60 days to comply. The EU found that app developers should be able to inform customers of alternative offers outside the App Store and steer them to those offers, but Apple fails to comply with this obligation, and due to Apple's restrictions, developers cannot fully benefit from alternative distribution channels.
Apple's litigation strategy in the US reveals a company gambling that legal complexity can substitute for actual compliance. An App Store antitrust class action running for more than a decade may be revived after US appeals rejected a previous dismissal, though in 2024 Judge Rogers allowed it to be a class action after ruling in 2022 that it could not be. A US district judge later decertified the 2024 Apple App Store class action lawsuit, citing what the court described as "alarming procedural and evidentiary errors" in how the plaintiffs' case was presented.
Yet on June 30, 2025, the US District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Apple's Motion to Dismiss the Department of Justice's lawsuit accusing the company of monopolising smartphone markets, with the DOJ and 16 state attorneys general alleging that through its monopoly position, Apple blocks innovative apps and services, making it harder for consumers to switch software and hardware.
The UK has been equally unsympathetic. The UK Competition Appeal Tribunal rejected Apple's framing of its market, found Apple held a dominant position, and concluded that exclusivity for App Store distribution and mandatory use of Apple's in-app payment system foreclosed competition. The tribunal found Apple's commissions excessive and unfair, estimating fair fees at 17.5% for distribution and 10% for payment services.
What makes this landscape particularly precarious for Apple is the lack of coherence. US courts have allowed some Apple arguments to succeed on technical grounds while finding willful contempt on conduct questions. The EU treats the issue as a gatekeeper problem requiring structural openness. The UK views it as excessive pricing. Each jurisdiction is moving toward different remedies, and Apple must navigate all of them simultaneously.
Legal experts point out that regulators have recently shifted focus from direct price harm toward platform control and interoperability, areas where enforcement agencies may have broader authority than civil plaintiffs. This shift has profound implications. Apple might lose arguments about commission levels but face mandatory architectural changes far more disruptive to its business.
The real question is whether Apple can actually change course. A company that spent four years appearing to comply while actually entrenching its position has exhausted the credibility required to negotiate favorable terms with regulators now watching closely. The ruling underscores ongoing tensions in Big Tech antitrust enforcement, with Apple maintaining it deserves "some compensation" for its ecosystem innovations while Epic hails the outcome as a step toward fairer app markets. That gap may be unbridgeable.