It would be inaccurate to claim that Apple or EPIC games have decisively won their acrimonious and long -standing legal dispute regarding the use of external payment links in iPhone applications: the courts have taken one side of the two companies at various times and to various aspects of the case. But Epic seems to take precedence over things, after a judge ruled anger at the end of April that Apple must authorize such links and called his previous response “insubordination”.
This seems conclusive and is a potential financial hammer blow: Apple earns a lot of money from transactions in iOS applications, and its cut can be about to shrink. But the question remains of what happens now to Fortnite, the game which triggered the dispute in 2020. Epic thinks that it should be allowed to return to the App Store, because it has been prohibited for something that must now be authorized, but Apple thinks that it is in its right to ban the game under the rules at the time and will not even consider a reversal until all the disputes are not finished.
If Apple is wise Behaving in this way is questionable. Refuse to allow Fortnite to come back hurts the owners of the iPhone as much as it hurts Epic, and it looks like small reprisals. But whether it is legally Justifiable is a different affair – a case that Epic decided to test by asking the judge in the species to force the hand of Apple and to argue that the company is in contempt of this decision of April. And the judge has now answered … rather disturbingly.
“The court receives the request of Epic Games, Inc. to enforce the injunction,” writes judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, in a document shared by the CEO of Epic, Tim Sweeney. “The court thus issues this order to show why the request must not be granted. Briefing […] Includes the legal authority on which Apple maintains that he can ignore the order of this court having not received any suspension of the ninth Circuit Court of Appeal even if his request was filed twelve days ago on May 7, 2025. “
This is not the most promising start for Apple, which is responsible for explaining why he did not respect the order despite the fact of receiving any encouragement from the Court of Appeal. But it gets worse:
“Obviously, Apple is fully capable of solving this problem without any other briefing or audience. However, if the parties do not file a joint opinion that this question is resolved and that the intervention of this court is required, the Apple official who is personally responsible for guaranteeing compliance must appear personally by the hearing by these Tuesday, May 27.”. “”
It is not clear that would be “the civil servant who is personally responsible for compliance”. MacRumors speculates that it could be a frame as high -end as Phil Schiller, who has the responsibility of the App Store, but Apple can try to get away with someone with a lower profile. But it seems that individual sanctions, rather than or as well as the fines of the company do not take into account more easily, could be in cards if the company pushes its luck much further. And it may be useful to emphasize that, although obviously an extreme option in this case, the court outlet can be punished with prison.
This does not mean that Apple would necessarily lose this hearing of May 27. One of the remedies given in the initial judgment of 2021 (see page 179, section G) by the same judge was “a declaration according to which (i) the end of Apple of the DPLA [Developer Product Licensing Agreement] And the related agreements between the Epic and Apple Games were valid, legal and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with one or all of the epic games of fully detained games, affiliates and / or other entities under the control of epic games at any time and at the discretion of Apple. “Since then, none of the decisions suggests a change in the judge's position on the question of whether Apple is authorized to start companies in the App Store as it is enjoyed.
The problem is that Apple is not specifically authorized to “prohibit” the use of external payment links. He can reject applications or prohibit developers' accounts at his discretion. But if he rejects an application or prohibits a developer for no reason other than his use of these links, does this equivalent to a de facto ban? Again, it's questionable.
If Apple can find another reason for the exclusion of Fortnite, this could be correct – and it may be useful that the company has, in accordance with managers, updates approved other high -level applications such as Spotify and Patreon which add the links. But if he cannot, the penalties could be serious. The issues have become much higher.
