Epic’s Latest Appeal Challenges Apple’s “Anti-Steering” Injunction Compliance

In October 2024, Epic Games filed a new appeal with the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, claiming that Apple is still not complying with the 2021 federal injunction that requires the company to allow developers to include external payment links. Epic argues that Apple’s revised App Store guidelines impose restrictive “anti-steering” rules that effectively neutralize the court’s original order. Specifically, Apple demands a 27% commission on purchases made through external links, requires developers to obtain a special entitlement, and forces them to display a system warning when users click the link. Epic contends these conditions are punitive and designed to preserve Apple’s revenue monopoly, not to advance any legitimate security goal. The company’s legal team stated that Apple’s compliance measures are “a sham” and that the tech giant continues to stifle competition by maintaining a walled-garden fee structure. Apple counters that its rules are within the court’s allowance and that it has a right to enforce its payment protections. The new appeal is still pending, but legal analysts expect the case to return to the district court for further review of Apple’s injunction compliance—meaning the fee fight will persist for years.

Inside Epic’s Legal Argument: Why the 30% Fee Violates Antitrust Law

Epic’s core legal theory rests on the definition of the relevant market: it argues that Apple has monopoly power in the market for iOS app distribution and in the aftermarket for iOS in-app payment processing. Because all iPhone apps must go through the App Store and all digital purchases must use Apple’s payment system, Apple can extract a 30% commission without fear of competitive discipline. Epic’s lawyers have presented economic analyses showing that Apple’s fees are far higher than what competitive market would bear—often noting that rivals like Steam, Microsoft, and Sony take similar cuts but only because they operate unconumbered by a prior market dominance. The case also highlights Apple’s prohibition on informing users about cheaper web-based alternatives, a rule that the district court found unlawful in 2021. Epic further points to Apple’s own internal documents in which executives reportedly admitted that the App Store could not face “credible competition” and that developers have “no choice.” While Apple has won on most federal antitrust claims—the district judge ruled that Epic failed to prove a monopolization under Section 2 of the Sherman Act—the case regarding unfair competition under California law remains active, giving Epic room to continue challenging the fee structure through state-level claims and future legislation.

Apple’s Defense Strategy: How the App Store Business Model Is Justified in Court

Apple has consistently defended its 30% commission by framing the App Store as a secure, curated marketplace that delivers enormous value to developers. In court, Apple’s executives emphasize that the fee is a fair return for the platform’s investments: Xcode development tools, app review, SDKs, edge servers, and a global payment network. Apple maintains that it does not monopolize anything because developers can choose to build for Android, the web, or consoles—pointing to Epic’s own Fortnite being available on multiple platforms. The company also argues that its commission rate is comparable to other digital marketplaces, and that it has never raised the rate, even lowering it to 15% for small businesses in 2020 and to 12% for some subscription renewals. Apple’s lawyers repeatedly cite the Supreme Court’s precedent that a company’s unilateral refusal to deal does not violate antitrust law, and that antitrust is not meant to correct “bad bargains.” They also highlight the “ecosystem efficiencies” that result from a single payment processor, which they say reduces fraud and identity theft. In recent public statements, Apple’s compliance chief has asserted that the company’s external-link rules are a “reasonable, good-faith response” to the injunction, and that Epic’s demands would require Apple to give away its storefront benefits for free. These arguments have so far convinced trial judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on the core monopoly claims, though Apple still lost on the anti-steering provision.

What the Ongoing Epic vs. Apple Case Means for Developers and Consumers Worldwide

Beyond the two tech giants, the outcome of Epic v. Apple will shape how digital platforms charge fees for decades. If Epic prevails on its new appeal—or if the case prompts tighter regulation—developers could gain the ability to process payments outside Apple’s system without paying a hefty tax. That would allow apps like Netflix, Spotify, and game services to lower prices or keep more revenue, potentially triggering a wave of alternative payment integrations. For consumers, greater competition in payment processing could lead to lower in-app prices, but also introduce more complex purchase flows and potential privacy trade-offs when sharing payment details with third parties. The case has already inspired legislative action: the European Union’s Digital Markets Act mandates that app stores allow sideloading and external payment links, forcing Apple to lower its commission in Europe to 10% for external link purchases. In the U.S., state legislators have proposed bills like the Open App Markets Act, which would prohibit dominant app stores from forcing developers to use their payment systems. Apple warns that such mandates would compromise device security, expose users to malware, and undermine the curated App Store experience. Meanwhile, Epic is expanding its legal campaign to other jurisdictions, including the U.K., Australia, and Japan, and has pushed for an even broader injunction against Apple’s fees. For now, the lower courts have granted Apple a limited victory on the core 30% fee itself—but Epic’s persistent appeals, combined with global regulators, ensure that “Apple tax” will remain a contested battleground for years to come.