Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

Judge sanctions Apple for blatantly violating 'Fortnite' App Store order

Apple vs Epic continues. Image source: Epic Games

The battle between Apple and Epic Games goes on as Judge Gonzalez Rogers finds Apple in violation of an injunction, which may result in Apple being charged with contempt by federal prosecutors.

The Epic vs Apple trial began as a result of Epic Games deliberately violating App Store rules in order to create a marketing campaign against Apple. The results had Apple win on every aspect except one — anti-steering.

Apple was ordered via a 2021 injunction to remove anti-steering barriers for third-party businesses, but Apple's App Store changes didn't satisfy Epic Games. A complaint was filed in March, which resulted in a very critical ruling on April 30 from Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers.

According to a report from Bloomberg, Apple has been found in willful violation of the injunction and must cease charging a commission on all purchases made outside of the App Store. The company may also face criminal contempt charges as the Judge referred the case to federal prosecutors.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers explained Apple's violation in detail.

"It did so with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers which would, by design and in effect, maintain a valued revenue stream; a revenue stream previously found to be anticompetitive," the Judge wrote in her ruling. "That it thought this court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation."

Apple's response to the injunction was two-pronged — offer a complicated external linking solution and still charge a 27% commission. These requirements made the injunction virtually useless as no major businesses took advantage of the seemingly obtuse system.

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney is taking victory laps on social media, stating that Fortnite will return to the iOS App Store "next week" if Apple responds to a peace proposal. All Apple would seemingly have to do is eliminate commissions on external purchases worldwide, not just in the United States.

If Apple does this, iOS gets Fortnite and Epic will drop litigation on the topic. Sweeney obviously sees this as a win-win.

It isn't clear how Apple will respond. The issues with Apple's compliance with the injunction arose in the first place due to a fear of lost revenue.

Apple CEO Tim Cook and former CFO Luca Maestri agreed that they should pursue commissions on external purchases. That decision was made in spite of App Store head Phil Schiller's concerns about it being a violation of the injunction.

If Tim Sweeney follows through on the peace offering, it would mean an end to the years of litigation. However, there doesn't seem to be any real benefit for Apple to do so, and the company isn't afraid to return to court.

Apple hasn't made a public response as of this publication.

21 Comments

jgreg728 9 Years · 121 comments

Apples only argument left here is that it’s unfair to allow developers to use their highly valued platform to advertise transactions *off* of it. The solution here is obviously alternate app stores and sideloading, which Apple also obviously doesn’t want but in the long term could do less damage than if the steering took place from within their App Store walls. 

4 Likes · 0 Dislikes
ssfe11 1 Year · 159 comments

Apple will appeal. Most Developers won’t leave the Apple Pay System for the convenience, reliability and security. As for allowing Epic back on the App Store. Well that is laughable as Apple knows all about lowlife Sweeney. Sweeney is the one who manipulated kids to empty their wallets. This guy is no good. 

3 Likes · 2 Dislikes
mikethemartian 19 Years · 1651 comments

What are the ramifications if they are found to be in 

criminal contempt?

kempathonnodge 4 Years · 24 comments

I’m so torn on this issue. 

On one hand, the walled garden works perfectly for me, I’m happy to support businesses by purchasing apps and for apple to take a commission. 

On the other hand, I do see that I own a device that I paid money for, and I should be allowed to install whatever I want on it, and apple shouldn’t be in onto of that. 

BUT, in the latter situation, should I be entitled to free updates of the software on my phone? Should I be entitled to keep my phone connected to apple’s ecosystem, where my phone could be a source of malware and insecurity for my contacts, as my phone could be so easily compromised? Should I be able to repair my phone in a way that compromises the above?

I have followed apple for 25 years now, and I still believe that they have proved their ability to act in a way which generally is pro-consumer by their philosophy. To me, Apple being forced to licence their software to other hardware companies, to allow unauthorised (as in part pairing) repairs, allowing side-loading and allowing companies to use and install software developed for their platforms without paying apple anything are not net benefits to the consumer.

if people want phones like that - go and buy an android. 

We all buy into iPhone because apple takes care of the reliability and security - a moving target that requires constant work. They also ‘guarentee’ that our phones will receive all this for 6-8 years after our purchase. This ecosystem comes at little ongoing cost to the consumer, but I’m happy to pay the ‘apple tax’ on purchases I have made of the App Store, and to follow the restrictions put on me to not have a device I can pull apart and install what I like on. If you want that phone - alternatives are available from other companies. 

 I’m pleased to see a shift into repairability, but the only people who will benefit from the world sweeney wants is more money in his pocket, and a degraded experience for customers, and smaller developers being pushed out of any opportunity to compete in the market. 

4 Likes · 0 Dislikes
davidw 18 Years · 2162 comments

The solution for Apple seem quite simple. If a developer want to have an app in the Apple App Store where there are advertising and links in the app that allows for any IAP payments outside of Apple iTunes, then Apple will charge those developers $1 per app downloaded per month, with a deal for $10 per  app per year.  (or something to that nature). It will be up to the developers if they want to charge their customers for downloading the app. So a developer can weigh in on whether to have a free app where Apple will get a commission or paid for each downloaded app and hope the users makes enough IAP to bring the cost of having such an app, below what they would had paid in commission.

This way the developers that are happy with the arrangement of having a free app and paying Apple a commission to handle IAP payments (along with refunds and updates) can still do so. And those that don't want to pay Apple a commission on IAP can do so by paying Apple upfront for having an app in the Apple App store from which they are profiting from using Apple IP.

Isn't Apple already doing something like this in the EU, with downloads from third party app stores?

3 Likes · 0 Dislikes