Apple is once again in hot water—and this time, it may face more than just legal criticism. A federal judge has accused the tech giant of deliberately defying a court order meant to rein in its tight control over the App Store, and she’s now referring the case to prosecutors to consider criminal contempt charges.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who has been at the center of the long-running legal feud between Apple and Fortnite maker Epic Games, issued a strongly worded ruling this week. In it, she claimed that Apple had not only failed to follow the court’s earlier directive but had also actively worked to sidestep it while maintaining the very business practices the court had called out.
Even more striking, the judge said an Apple executive had misled the court under oath, describing his testimony as filled with “misdirection and outright lies.”
Epic vs. Apple: A Battle Over Control and Cash
This legal saga began in 2020 when Epic Games sued Apple, arguing that the iPhone maker’s App Store policies were monopolistic. At the heart of the case was Apple’s practice of taking a 30% cut from in-app purchases and blocking developers from guiding users to alternative ways to pay.
In 2021, Judge Gonzalez Rogers handed down a mixed ruling. While she didn’t completely side with Epic, she did find Apple’s restrictions harmful to competition. She ordered Apple to allow developers to inform users about outside payment options—an effort to break Apple’s stronghold on app-related transactions.
Apple’s Workaround: Compliance in Name Only
Apple did not ignore the ruling outright—but it also didn’t fully comply. Instead, the company tweaked its rules just enough to appear cooperative while still maintaining control. For purchases made outside the App Store, Apple reduced its commission from 30% to 27%. But it also introduced warning screens that made users think twice before venturing away from Apple’s ecosystem, a move critics say was intended to scare them off.
Epic challenged this new approach, and the court asked Apple to turn over internal documents. What Judge Gonzalez Rogers found there fueled her latest order.
Behind Closed Doors: Apple Knew What It Was Doing
According to the judge, Apple’s leadership fully understood what the company was doing—and chose to act in a way that would preserve its lucrative revenue stream. Internal communications showed that Phillip Schiller, who oversees the App Store, actually advised compliance. But CEO Tim Cook allegedly went a different route, siding with Chief Financial Officer Luca Maestri and the finance team, who pushed back against the court’s order.
The ruling describes this as a calculated strategy, designed “with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers” and maintain Apple’s dominance in the app market.
A Key Executive Called Out for Lying
The judge reserved some of her strongest words for Apple’s Vice President of Finance, Alex Roman. Roman testified that the decision to introduce the 27% fee and other changes was based on standard business practices. But documents told a different story—one that, according to Judge Gonzalez Rogers, made it clear that Apple was trying to sidestep the court’s mandate while pretending to comply.
“The testimony of Mr. Roman was replete with misdirection and outright lies,” she wrote.
Apple Pushes Back, Vows to Appeal
Apple is standing its ground. In a statement to WIRED, spokesperson Olivia Dalton said the company “strongly disagrees” with the judge’s findings but will comply with the order while appealing the decision. Roman himself hasn’t commented publicly.
Still, the judge made it clear that Apple’s behavior was unacceptable and warned there would be no more patience for delays. “This is an injunction, not a negotiation,” she emphasized.
Epic’s CEO Cheers the Ruling
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney reacted quickly to the news, calling it a win for developers and consumers. Posting on X (formerly Twitter), he said the ruling would bring an end to “Apple’s 15–30% junk fees” and praised the court for standing up to what he described as Apple’s bullying tactics.
Sweeney and Epic have long criticized Apple for using its control over the App Store to squash competition and keep fees high. This ruling, he said, is a major step toward a more open and fair app ecosystem.
What Happens Now?
The next steps could be serious. Judge Gonzalez Rogers has referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney’s Office in San Francisco to decide whether criminal contempt charges are warranted—a rare move in a corporate case.
If prosecutors choose to act, Apple could face a new wave of legal challenges, not just from regulators but potentially from criminal courts as well.
For now, the judge has ordered Apple to fully implement her original directive without further delay. Whether this signals real change in how Apple manages its App Store—or simply leads to more legal wrangling—remains to be seen.
