Apple Says App Store Changes Go Too Far in New Epic Games Appeal Filing

[MacRumors]

The court order that required Apple to collect no fees from developers who link to purchases outside of the App Store is unconstitutional, Apple said today in a reply brief directed at Epic Games and filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Apple argues that it has been stripped of its rights to be compensated for its intellectual property in a ruling that sets a dangerous precedent for all companies.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who has been overseeing the Apple vs. Epic Games lawsuit, first ordered Apple in 2021 to let developers add in-app links directing customers to third-party purchase options on the web. Apple didn't have to implement the changes until 2024, and when it did, Apple charged a 12 to 27 percent fee for purchases made through links in an app. Epic Games went back to the judge and said Apple was charging "unjustified fees" and should be held in contempt of court.

Gonzalez Rogers agreed with Epic and said that Apple was in "willful violation" of the original order. In April 2025, Apple was given a much more specific mandate to allow linking with no fees and no control over how links are presented in an app, which was a win for Epic Games and for other app developers unhappy with paying fees to link out to the web. Apple implemented the changes, but appealed the ruling.

According to Apple, the 12 to 27 percent fee that it was charging and the rules that it had implemented around link design complied with the original order. The April ruling [PDF] forcing Apple to implement App Store changes said that Apple had not followed the "spirit of the injunction" and had instead used a "dubiously literal interpretation," a point that Epic emphasized in its own filing with the court. In response, Apple argues that this is a weak argument that led to the injunction being expanded beyond what is permissible by law.

The new injunction imposes, in meticulous detail, new design and formatting rules and dictates the messages that Apple may convey to its own users on its own platform. These requirements represent an improper expansion and modification of the original injunction—rather than an attempt to enforce compliance with the original injunction—and violate the First Amendment by forcing Apple to convey messages it disagrees with. Epic doubles down on the district court's emphasis on the "spirit" of the original injunction and Apple’s supposed bad faith, but civil contempt turns on whether a party has violated the actual terms of an injunction—which Epic does not meaningfully try to show

Apple argues that it should be able to ask for compensation for its IP protected technologies, and that the court should have forced compliance with the original injunction instead of rewriting the injunction with new terms that prohibit Apple from collecting fees.

The district court's sweeping new zero-commission rule also is not tailored to Epic's claimed harm, improperly imposes a punitive sanction, and effects an unconstitutional taking.

Should the Ninth Circuit Court find the updated injunction lawful, Apple suggests that the recent Trump v. Casa Supreme Court ruling [PDF] needs to be considered. The ruling said courts do not have the authority to issue universal injunctions that are "broader than necessary to provide complete relief" to the plaintiffs in the case. Epic Games is the only plaintiff in the case, so Apple also argues that the injunction changing the App Store rules for all developers is too broad. Apple says that the injunction should be tailored to Epic and Epic's interests alone.

Epic has never demonstrated how requiring Apple to permit all manner of linked-out purchases from any developer—and prohibiting Apple from collecting any commission on such purchases—is necessary to remedy Epic’s full harm, particularly for linked-out transactions that do not involve Epic. Just the opposite, Epic has lined up amici to describe how they wish to steer on the back of Apple's IP-protected technologies at zero cost to themselves, and not to the Epic Games Store.

... Requiring Apple to permit linked-out transactions to Spotify, Microsoft, or Amazon does not benefit Epic in any way and is not necessary to remedy any harm suffered by Epic.

Apple wants the new injunction vacated, and the original injunction reconsidered to determine whether it is too broad.

As of right now, Apple is required to allow all developers in the U.S. to provide links to external websites with no restrictions on link design and no fees. If the appeals court rules in Apple's favor, Apple could change its App Store rules again to reimplement fees.

Article Link: Apple Says App Store Changes Go Too Far in New Epic Games Appeal Filing

 

[germanbeer007]

You know, devs, you don't have to develop for iOS. Just leave. Problem solved.

Just like how I can choose not to develop for the Epic Games Store using Unreal engine on Windows. I can develop for Steam using Unity for Mac.

 

[TechnoMonk]

 

[jz0309]

yup, as expected. keep the popcorn supply steady ...

 

[klasma]

violate the First Amendment by forcing Apple to convey messages it disagrees with.

Apple should better add an Apple Intelligence check to Messages in order to ensure that only messages are conveyed that Apple agrees with.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Apple says it deserves to be compensated for its IP protected technologies, and that the order removing its rights is unconstitutional because it extended the terms of the original injunction.

Didn’t they get the memo that we aren’t really doing the “Constitution” anymore?

It’s pay to play now, which I thought they knew after doing the embarrassing gold and liquid glass statue bribe.

 

[HMI]

Will I have the option to downvote Epic into Hades itself. Might be fun!

 

[rp2011]

Yeah this is nuts. A company should be able to run its own company. It’s not about monopolies that’s crazy. There’s plenty of competition. I hear Android is great. Apple seems to know what it’s doing and even making a profit. This is not about protecting the consumer’ or completion, that’s just BS.

 

[neuropsychguy]

This is a case that will need to go to the Supreme Court for resolution. Apple is correct in that it has the potential for broad consequences about business practices.

 

[Scipster]

This is a case that will need to go to the Supreme Court for resolution. Apple is correct in that it has the potential for broad consequences about business practices.

I thought this already went to the Supreme Court, no? Didn’t they decline to take up the case?

How many times are Epic and Apple allowed to appeal?

It seems like this saga will go one foreeeeveerrr 🙄

 

[Starfia]

Thanks to the author for continuing the succinct reporting on this issue.

 

[Boeingfan]

Go Apple.

 

[Agent007]

Apple execs are more terrified than ever of losing their grip on the ecosystem especially now that services revenue is their primary focus. Look at how quickly they blocked that torrenting app in the EU. I can absolutely see them slowly phasing in "app store only" Macs using a BS excuse because a bean-counter told execs "hobbyists will be upset but studies have shown that our core clientele of Soccer Moms and college students exhibit remarkable brand loyalty." MagSafe charging only - why would you need ports now that everything can be downloaded from the App store on WiFi?

 

[Rogifan]

Which IP are Apple referring to? Presumably it’s the same IP that is used to build apps like Uber and Lyft. Apple doesn’t get a cut of those transactions. Or what about purchases made via the browser? There’s no IP attached to Safari or any 3rd party browser in the App Store?

 

[cdsapplefan]

Apple execs are more terrified than ever of losing their grip on the ecosystem especially now that services revenue is their primary focus. Look at how quickly they blocked that torrenting app in the EU. I can absolutely see them slowly phasing in "app store only" Macs using a BS excuse because a bean-counter told execs "hobbyists will be upset but studies have shown that our core clientele of Soccer Moms and college students exhibit remarkable brand loyalty." MagSafe charging only - why would you need ports now that everything can be downloaded from the App store on WiFi?

Apple’s Lawyers found a Workaround with the Masimo Lawsuit and they will find a Workaround with this Epic Lawsuit. Apple 🍎 pays the big bucks for good Lawyers.

 

[miric]

Am I only person who tired of Epic Fails?

 

[Rogifan]

Didn’t they get the memo that we aren’t really doing the “Constitution” anymore?

It’s pay to play now, which I thought they knew after doing the embarrassing gold and liquid glass statue bribe.

It is interesting that Apple’s PR is all about privacy and security and ‘scare sheets’ but in court filings it’s about IP. But how do they make this argument when it only applies to digital goods and they get to exempt certain digital goods. So it’s unconstitutional for Epic to not have to pay Apple 30% but not Netflix or Spotify?

 

[zahuh]

I bought something on amazon.com on my Mac, APPLE SHOULD GET 30%!!! I bought something on Ebay app, APPLE SHOULD GET 30%!!! It's done on Apple's device and they should get a piece of every transaction!!! Oh wait, doesn't make ANY SENSE and they've made BILLIONS. I wish someone would sue them and give us developers our money back WE EARNED by a user going to our website/app and buying something.

 

[surferfb]

Which IP are Apple referring to? Presumably it’s the same IP that is used to build apps like Uber and Lyft. Apple doesn’t get a cut of those transactions. Or what about purchases made via the browser? There’s no IP attached to Safari or any 3rd party browser in the App Store?

iOS, the APIs, and the App Store are the property Apple is referring to. Under existing Supreme Court precedent, forcing Apple to let others use that property for free runs into serious constitutional problems. Apple is also allowed to charge different companies different prices (or no price at all); that’s not unusual in licensing.

To be clear, that doesn’t mean Apple automatically wins. Precedent can shift, and courts can carve exceptions, but it’s a much stronger argument than a lot of people here give it credit for.

 

[neuropsychguy]

I thought this already went to the Supreme Court, no? Didn’t they decline to take up the case?

How many times are Epic and Apple allowed to appeal?

It seems like this saga will go one foreeeeveerrr 🙄

That's correct, it did refuse to hear the cases back in January 2024. However, with these ongoing additional arguments and appeals, it's likely to work its way back up in some form otherwise it might keep going for a long time, like you said.

 

[Hajj.david]

I hope apple loses. 30% or even 15% for payment processing is criminal. In addition they don't even support our license type and so for years I had to go through this huge headache with apple almost every time we have a major app update.

If Apple was reasonable and said 5% or 10% nobody would have batted an eye. Their greed has put them in this position.

 

[Hewhowalksbehindtherows]

Can I walk into Target and demand they sell whatever I want, and not pay them? Those are two totally different questions, but Epic's desires seem to mirror this. They seem unfathomable.

 

[Hewhowalksbehindtherows]

I hope apple loses. 30% or even 15% for payment processing is criminal. In addition they don't even support our license type and so for years I had to go through this huge headache with apple almost every time we have a major app update.

If Apple was reasonable and said 5% or 10% nobody would have batted an eye. Their greed has put them in this position.

What about your greed?

 

[Semio]

The iPhone is a pocket computer. On all other computers we can install whatever we want. The set up with the iPhone should be exactly the same as a Mac. On a Mac we have an App Store, if you want to use it, go ahead and use it. If you don't.. no worries, don't use it. iOS should be the same.

 

[The_Gream]

Love how a companies IP which is ether under copyright or patent which is protected and issued by the Federal Government can so easily be forced to be given out freely (minus the yearly dev fee, but knowing Tim Whiny, he will argue that’s to much soon too) because a Federal Judge has over stepped her authority.

The anti steering law is California law. When Apple was tried in California for violating that law the state said they did not. There are no Federal Anti-steering laws and as such a Federal judge has no right making a ruling on a state law.

Epic’s argument about anti-steering should have been sent to the courts in California.

If Apple’s Anti-steering policy is wrong then it is wrong for every business to have anti-steering polices.

If people have an issue with Apple’s system then take your money somewhere else. If Apple loses enough business they will make changes to their platform naturally or fail just like BlackBerry Nokia and others.