Judge bars Apple from taking fees on out-of-app purchases in Epic Games dispute

In a sweeping order Wednesday, a federal judge in Oakland ruled that Apple Inc. can no longer collect commissions on purchases made outside its apps -- and is barred from restricting how developers direct users to external payment platforms.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers accused an Apple executive of lying under oath about its compliance with her previous injunction to stop overcharging app developers and referred the matter to Northern District of California acting U.S. Attorney Patrick D. Robbins for investigation of criminal contempt.

"Apple willfully chose not to comply with this Court's Injunction," Gonzalez Rogers wrote. "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. That it thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation."

The judge's ruling is a major development in the Cupertino technology giant's legal battle with video game company Epic Games Inc. and its attorneys, who accused Apple of failing to comply with the judge's order and "avoiding its day of reckoning."

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney, in a post on X, said the company would return its popular game Fortnite to Apple's U.S. iOS Store next week.

"Epic puts forth a peace proposal: If Apple extends the court's friction-free, Apple-tax-free framework worldwide, we'll return Fortnite to the App Store worldwide and drop current and future litigation on the topic," he wrote.

An Apple spokesperson said the company would comply with the judge's order but also appeal it. "We strongly disagree with the decision," the company said in a statement.

Gonzalez Rogers accused Apple of openly defying her orders and imposing new barriers and commissions on purchases made outside its app. Epic Games Inc. v. Apple Inc., 20-cv-05640 (N.D. Cal., filed Aug. 13, 2025).

"In stark contrast to Apple's initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option," she wrote.

"To hide the truth, [Apple's] Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath," Gonzalez Rogers continued.

"Internally, [longtime company executive] Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but [Apple CEO] Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise," she added. "Cook chose poorly."

Epic Games sued Apple alleging Sherman Act antitrust claims as well as a state unfair practices claim. Gonzalez Rogers ruled for Apple on the federal claim but against it on the state claim for violating California's Unfair Competition Law - a decision that was affirmed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court in January 2024. The injunction followed a day later.

But Epic's lawyers accused Apple of refusing to comply with Gonzalez Rogers' injunction to stop overcharging app developers, and a discovery battle ensued between the companies over what Epic said was its legal adversary's refusal to comply with the judge's injunction.

Gonzalez Rogers seemed infuriated by what she described in Wednesday's order as "an obvious cover-up" by Apple intended to thwart the injunction's goals and continue "its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream."

"Apple was afforded ample opportunity to respond to the Injunction," she wrote. "It chose to defy this Court's order and manufacture post hoc justifications for maintaining an anticompetitive revenue stream. Apple's actions to misconstrue the Injunction continue to impede competition. This Court will not play 'whack-a-mole,' nor will it tolerate further delay."

Aside from banning any fees on purchases made outside an app, the judge's permanent injunction bars Apple from requiring developers to report purchases or any other activity that consumers make outside an app.

The company also cannot restrict or condition developers' style, language, formatting, quantity, flow or placement of links for purchases outside an app; or prohibit or limit the use of buttons or other "calls to action;" or interfere with consumers' choice to proceed in or out of an app by using anything other than a neutral message apprising users that they are going to a third-party site, the judge ordered.

Apple is represented by Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP partner Mark A. Perry, among other attorneys. Epic Games is represented by Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP partner Yonatan Even and other lawyers.