In a strategic legal maneuver, Apple is invoking a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on birthright citizenship to contest a federal injunction mandating changes to its App Store policies. This development is the latest chapter in the ongoing legal battle between Apple and Epic Games, the creator of the popular game Fortnite.
Background of the Dispute
The conflict began in August 2020 when Epic Games introduced a direct payment system within the iOS version of Fortnite, circumventing Apple’s in-app purchase mechanism, which imposes a 30% commission on transactions. This move led Apple to remove Fortnite from the App Store, prompting Epic to file a lawsuit alleging antitrust violations and challenging Apple’s control over app distribution and payments on iOS devices.
Initial Court Rulings
In September 2021, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled on the case, siding with Apple on nine out of ten counts. However, she found Apple’s anti-steering policies—rules that prevent developers from directing users to alternative payment methods—violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. Consequently, Judge Rogers issued an injunction requiring Apple to allow developers to include links and information about external payment options within their apps.
Apple’s Compliance and Subsequent Contempt Ruling
Apple’s response to the injunction involved implementing an External Link Purchase Entitlement Program, permitting developers to include a single link directing users to external purchasing mechanisms. However, Apple continued to charge a commission of 12% to 27% on these external transactions and imposed strict guidelines on how these links could be presented within apps. Epic Games contended that these measures were designed to dissuade developers from utilizing alternative payment options, effectively undermining the court’s order.
In April 2025, Judge Rogers found Apple in willful violation of the injunction, stating that the company had deliberately attempted to maintain its anticompetitive revenue stream. The court ordered Apple to cease imposing commissions on external purchases and to remove restrictions on how developers could present alternative payment options within their apps.
Apple’s Appeal Citing Supreme Court Decision
In its appeal to the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, Apple is referencing a June 2025 Supreme Court ruling related to birthright citizenship. While the case itself did not pertain to Apple’s business practices, the Supreme Court’s decision limited the authority of federal judges to issue universal injunctions—orders that apply broadly beyond the parties directly involved in a lawsuit.
Apple argues that this precedent should restrict the scope of Judge Rogers’ injunction, contending that the order should not extend to all developers but rather be limited to the parties involved in the case. The company asserts that the broad applicability of the injunction exceeds the court’s authority, as established by the recent Supreme Court ruling.
Implications and Industry Reactions
Apple’s appeal has significant implications for the tech industry, particularly concerning the regulation of digital marketplaces and the balance of power between platform owners and developers. If Apple’s argument is successful, it could limit the ability of courts to enforce broad changes in platform policies, potentially affecting how antitrust laws are applied in the digital age.
Epic Games and other developers have criticized Apple’s appeal, arguing that the injunction’s broad applicability is necessary to foster competition and provide consumers with more choices. They contend that allowing developers to inform users about alternative payment options is essential for a fair and competitive app ecosystem.
Conclusion
The legal battle between Apple and Epic Games continues to evolve, with Apple’s latest appeal introducing a novel argument based on a Supreme Court decision unrelated to the tech industry. The outcome of this appeal could have far-reaching consequences for app store policies, developer rights, and the broader landscape of digital commerce. As the case progresses, stakeholders across the industry will be closely monitoring developments to understand the potential impact on their businesses and the digital marketplace as a whole.
