Apple is actively contesting a federal court’s directive that mandates significant alterations to its App Store policies. The company asserts that these enforced changes infringe upon its First Amendment rights and could have profound implications for its business operations.
Background of the Legal Dispute
The legal confrontation between Apple and Epic Games began in 2020 when Epic accused Apple of monopolistic practices related to its App Store. In 2021, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an injunction prohibiting Apple from preventing developers from directing users to alternative payment methods—a practice known as anti-steering. Despite this, in April 2025, the court found Apple in violation of the injunction and imposed additional sanctions, including lifting restrictions on external payment links and banning fees for purchases made outside the App Store.
Apple’s Constitutional Argument
In response, Apple filed an appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on June 24, 2025. The company contends that the court’s order compels it to disseminate messages it disagrees with, thereby violating its First Amendment rights. Apple argues that being forced to host and promote external payment options undermines its editorial control over the App Store, which it views as a curated platform.
Industry Support for Apple’s Position
Supporting Apple’s stance, industry groups such as the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA) and NetChoice have filed briefs emphasizing the constitutional implications of the court’s order. They argue that compelling Apple to allow any form of developer messaging related to external purchases, even if misleading or critical of Apple, infringes upon the company’s free speech rights. The CCIA’s brief states, The First Amendment does not permit courts to compel private companies to carry speech they would prefer to exclude.
Concerns Over Judicial Overreach
Apple further contends that the district court exceeded its authority by imposing punitive terms unrelated to the original legal issues. The company argues that the prohibition on commissions lacks a legal basis under California’s Unfair Competition Law and amounts to an unconstitutional taking. Apple maintains that while its 27% commission on external purchases might be considered high, a blanket ban on all commissions is unjustified.
Request for Judicial Reassignment
In its appeal, Apple has also requested that the case be reassigned to a new judge if it returns to the district court. The company argues that Judge Rogers has expressed views that raise doubts about her impartiality, citing legal standards that allow for reassignment when a judge’s prior findings may affect future rulings or undermine public confidence in fairness.
Implications for the App Store and Beyond
The outcome of this legal battle could have far-reaching consequences for Apple’s App Store business model and the broader app development ecosystem. If the court’s order is upheld, it may set a precedent for how digital platforms handle payments and developer communications, potentially reshaping the landscape of app distribution and monetization.
Apple’s Defense Against Antitrust Allegations
In parallel to this case, Apple is also facing antitrust allegations from the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ). A federal judge recently ruled that Apple must face the DOJ’s lawsuit, which accuses the company of using technical restrictions, high developer fees, and limited interoperability to maintain its market dominance. Apple defends its practices by emphasizing the security and privacy benefits of its integrated ecosystem and argues that it operates in a competitive market.
Global Regulatory Challenges
Beyond the United States, Apple is contending with regulatory challenges in other jurisdictions. The European Commission has imposed a €500 million fine on Apple for violating the Digital Markets Act (DMA) by restricting developer communications about alternative payment options. Apple is appealing the fine, arguing that it made extensive efforts to comply with the DMA but received insufficient guidance from regulators.
Conclusion
Apple’s ongoing legal battles underscore the complex interplay between platform control, developer rights, and regulatory oversight in the digital economy. As courts and regulators continue to scrutinize Apple’s App Store policies, the outcomes of these cases could have significant implications for the future of app distribution and the balance of power between tech giants and developers.
