William Gallagher
While complying with the courts and their mandated changes to the App Store as fallout from the Epic vs. Apple suit, Apple has now also filed its appeal against the ruling.
On May 1, 2025, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to immediately make specific changes to its App Store practices, after ruling that it had failed to comply with its previous obligations. The judge specifically refused any delay, but did allow for Apple to appeal — and it has now done so.
As first spotted by The Verge, Apple has filed its notice of appeal to the United States District Court for the district of Northern California. The filing is a short document only listing which case is being appealed against — US District Court case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR — and the names of Apple's legal counsel.
As yet, there is no schedule for the appeal, nor has there been any public response from the court regarding the filing. It's just the first required step in lodging the appeal that Apple had already confirmed it would do when it said "we strongly disagree" with the ruling.
Since the ruling required immediate compliance, Apple has had to implement all of the judge's orders, but will of course be hoping to reverse at least some of them. The appeal is also specifically against the ruling regarding alleged anti-competitive practices with the App Store, and has no connection with the potential criminal contempt proceedings that Judge Gonzalez Rogers is pursuing.
As part of complying with the order, Apple has had to drop its limitations on developers promoting alternatives to the App Store's in-app payment system. As a consequence, companies that had been lobbying for this change, such as Spotify, immediately updated their apps to give users the option of direct payments.
The ruling follows the years-long Epic Games versus Apple trial, which Apple won on every count bar one. That count regarded Apple's anti-steering practices that limited developers, and Apple claimed to have subsequently complied with the court's 2021 ruling on the issue.
However, Epic Games claimed that Apple's compliance instead "frustrate and effectively nullify the relief the Court ordered."
In her ruling mandating changes, Judge Gonzalez Rogers, agreed that Apple had created "new anticompetitive barriers. She said that Apple "thought this court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation."
Apple has not commented publicly on its appeal filing.
-m.jpg)
Wesley Hilliard
Andrew Orr
Oliver Haslam
Marko Zivkovic
Christine McKee
Malcolm Owen
10 Comments
Great. Free the iPhone. I don’t need Apple nannying me
Avon is correct. There's nothing inherently wrong with Apple being dominant or the preferred choice. The problem is/was their anti-steering policies which meant an uneven playing field. As noted, this is not just one judge or one government agency telling Apple what they are doing is unfair. It is multiple organizations around the world.
This will drive more regulation and more legislation that favors fair competition. Apple's lawyers will fight but ultimately it's a benefit to let consumers decide whether or not they want to stay in the safety of the walled garden or walk through the newly opened gates.
My guess is that many would rather just give their credit card information to a handful of companies (like Apple, Amazon, Google, or Steam) rather than fill out forms on dozens and dozens of websites/apps for separate charges which increases the risk of security issues, privacy breaches, fraud, etc.
But for sure, third party merchants should have the right to provide information to consumers to let them know that they have other options.
I know that I have purchased Mac software in the past directly from the developer's own store at a discounted price compared to the Mac App Store offering. There is no reason why iPhone and iPad users shouldn't have the same choice.
I am not sure why Apple can not have a unique agreement and contract with each developer, or at least the largest ones. Netflix does not pay the 30%, albeit it has a very large base of iPhone users and AFAIK rules for streamers are different. But couldn't Apple renegotiate with others and have as part of the contract, clauses that define a firm but fair share of revenue? Courts are good for identifying issues that need correction, but are generally terrible with 'remedies'. Apple should have read the room and did something concrete the first time around on anti steering, as an angry judge is not what you want.