In the ongoing legal battle between Apple and Epic Games, a significant development has emerged concerning Apple’s App Store policies and the company’s assertion of its First Amendment rights. The dispute centers on a court injunction requiring Apple to modify its App Store rules to allow developers greater freedom in directing users to alternative payment methods—a practice known as anti-steering.
Background of the Legal Dispute
The conflict began when Epic Games, the creator of the popular game Fortnite, challenged Apple’s App Store policies, particularly the 30% commission Apple charges on in-app purchases. Epic introduced a direct payment option within Fortnite, circumventing Apple’s payment system, which led to the game’s removal from the App Store and subsequent legal action.
In 2021, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an injunction mandating that Apple permit developers to include links within their apps directing users to external purchasing options, effectively prohibiting Apple’s anti-steering practices. This ruling aimed to foster greater competition and provide consumers with more choices.
Apple’s Response and Alleged Non-Compliance
Despite the court’s directive, Apple implemented measures that critics argue undermine the injunction’s intent. The company introduced a 27% fee on purchases made through external links and imposed restrictions on how developers could present these links within their apps. These actions led to accusations that Apple was attempting to preserve its revenue stream by creating barriers to alternative payment methods.
In April 2025, Judge Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in contempt for willfully violating the injunction. The court ordered Apple to cease such practices immediately and referred the matter to federal prosecutors to investigate potential criminal contempt charges against the company and its executives. Apple announced plans to appeal the ruling but stated it would comply in the interim.
Free Speech Argument and Amicus Brief
On June 24, 2025, Apple filed an appeal with the 9th Circuit Court, seeking to overturn what it described as an unduly punitive mandate. Supporting Apple’s appeal, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and trade association NetChoice submitted an amicus brief arguing that the injunction infringes upon Apple’s First Amendment rights.
The 47-page brief contends that the court’s order compels Apple to host and disseminate speech from developers, even if that speech is misleading or disparaging toward Apple. It argues that the injunction restricts Apple’s ability to control the content within its platform, including the style, language, and placement of external purchase links. The brief asserts that forcing Apple to accommodate messages it prefers to exclude is constitutionally offensive and violates the company’s free speech rights.
Implications for the Tech Industry
This case has significant implications for the tech industry, particularly concerning the balance between regulatory oversight and the rights of platform owners. If the court upholds the injunction, it could set a precedent requiring platform operators to allow more open communication about alternative payment methods, potentially reducing their control over in-app transactions and associated revenues.
Conversely, if Apple’s free speech argument prevails, it could reinforce the ability of platform owners to maintain strict control over the content and commerce within their ecosystems, potentially limiting developers’ ability to inform users about alternative purchasing options.
Conclusion
The legal battle between Apple and Epic Games continues to evolve, with the latest developments highlighting complex issues at the intersection of antitrust law, free speech, and digital commerce. As the case progresses through the appeals process, its outcome could have far-reaching effects on how digital platforms operate and interact with developers and consumers.
