In a pivotal legal development, Apple has returned to the courtroom to contest a contempt ruling related to its App Store payment policies. The tech giant is seeking to overturn a decision by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who previously found that Apple willfully ignored an injunction mandating the inclusion of alternative payment options within the App Store.
Background of the Case
The legal battle traces back to the high-profile lawsuit between Apple and Epic Games, initiated in 2020. Epic Games challenged Apple’s App Store policies, particularly the prohibition against developers directing users to external payment methods—a practice known as anti-steering. In 2021, Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple’s anti-steering provisions were anticompetitive and issued an injunction requiring Apple to allow developers to inform users about alternative payment options.
Apple’s Compliance and Subsequent Contempt Ruling
In response to the injunction, Apple implemented changes to its App Store guidelines. However, these modifications were criticized for being overly complex and restrictive, effectively discouraging developers from utilizing external payment links. For instance, Apple required developers to submit a separate app version for approval if they included external links, a process that many found burdensome. Additionally, Apple imposed a 27% commission on purchases made through external links, only slightly less than the standard 30% fee, which developers argued did not provide a meaningful alternative.
In April 2025, Judge Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple’s actions constituted a willful violation of the court’s order. She described Apple’s compliance efforts as gross insubordination and mandated immediate changes to the App Store’s policies to fully adhere to the original injunction. The judge emphasized that Apple must cease practices that restrict developers from promoting alternative payment options and must allow the use of any links, buttons, or calls to action that direct users to external purchasing mechanisms.
Apple’s Appeal and Judicial Reception
Apple has now appealed the contempt ruling, arguing that the lower court overstepped its authority by imposing what it describes as punitive measures. During the recent hearing at the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Apple’s legal team contended that the company had not intended to violate the injunction and that the imposed requirements were excessively burdensome.
The appellate judges appeared receptive to Apple’s arguments, expressing skepticism about the breadth of the lower court’s ruling. They questioned whether the contempt finding was justified and whether the remedies imposed were appropriate. This judicial sympathy suggests that Apple may have a favorable chance of overturning the contempt ruling.
Implications for Developers and the App Store Ecosystem
The outcome of this appeal holds significant implications for developers and the broader App Store ecosystem. If Apple’s appeal is successful, it could reinforce the company’s control over its payment systems and maintain the status quo regarding App Store commissions. Conversely, if the contempt ruling is upheld, Apple may be compelled to implement more substantial changes, potentially reducing its commission structure and granting developers greater flexibility in directing users to alternative payment methods.
Developers have long advocated for more autonomy in how they manage in-app purchases, arguing that Apple’s stringent policies stifle innovation and limit consumer choice. The court’s decision in this appeal will likely influence future negotiations and policies concerning app distribution and monetization on iOS devices.
Broader Legal Context
This case is part of a series of legal challenges Apple has faced regarding its App Store practices. In May 2025, Apple filed an appeal against a court ruling that mandated specific changes to the App Store, arguing that the decision exceeded legal requirements and imposed undue burdens on the company. Additionally, Apple has contested fines and regulatory actions in the European Union, asserting that demands to share its technology with rivals and to alter its App Store operations go beyond what the law requires.
These ongoing legal battles underscore the complex and evolving landscape of digital marketplaces, where issues of competition, innovation, and consumer protection intersect. The decisions made in these cases will likely have far-reaching consequences for how app stores operate and how developers engage with platform owners.
Conclusion
Apple’s appeal against the contempt ruling represents a critical juncture in the ongoing debate over App Store policies and developer rights. The appellate court’s apparent sympathy toward Apple’s position suggests that the company may succeed in overturning the lower court’s decision. However, the final outcome remains uncertain and will be closely watched by industry stakeholders, developers, and consumers alike.
As the legal proceedings continue, the tech industry awaits clarity on the balance between platform control and developer freedom, a balance that will shape the future of app distribution and monetization in the digital age.
