Apple is once again challenging a court order tied to its high-profile feud with Epic Games. In a recent filing with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the company argued that a federal judge’s decision to ban commissions on external payment links within apps is unconstitutional. According to Apple, the order strips it of fair compensation for its intellectual property and sets a precedent that could ripple across the wider tech industry.
At the heart of the dispute is a fundamental question: should Apple retain the ability to profit from transactions on apps distributed through its App Store, even when those purchases occur on third-party platforms?
How It All Began
The legal saga dates back to 2021, when U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to give developers the ability to direct users to external payment options outside of the App Store. At the time, Apple was given until 2024 to comply.
When it eventually rolled out the feature, Apple attached a commission of 12 to 27 percent for purchases made through those external links. That move sparked outrage from Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite, which accused Apple of bending the court’s order in its favor.
The court sided with Epic earlier this year. Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple had deliberately violated her injunction and in April 2025 expanded the mandate, requiring Apple to allow fee-free external links without any restrictions on how they are presented inside apps. For Epic and other developers frustrated with Apple’s fees, this was a major victory.
Apple’s Position: Overreach by the Court
In its latest appeal, Apple insists it was following the original 2021 order by allowing external links while applying commissions. The company argues the court went too far by later banning fees altogether and dictating link design.
Apple describes this as judicial overreach, claiming the new requirements essentially rewrote the original injunction. It also raises a free speech argument, stating that forcing Apple to permit and display links in specific formats compels it to deliver messages it does not agree with on its own platform.
From Apple’s perspective, the proper step should have been enforcing the original order more narrowly, not expanding it with sweeping new rules that threaten its business model.
Epic’s Response: Bad Faith Compliance
Epic maintains that Apple never truly followed the spirit of the original injunction. The game developer claims Apple introduced the external link option in a way that preserved its App Store dominance, rather than providing developers genuine freedom.
The court backed that view, noting Apple’s “dubiously literal interpretation” of the ruling. Epic continues to stress that Apple acted in bad faith, using technical loopholes to undermine the intent of the order.
Apple counters that contempt rulings must be based on whether the exact terms of an injunction were violated, not on subjective interpretations of intent.
Constitutional and Industry-Wide Concerns
Apple’s brief goes beyond its dispute with Epic, raising broader constitutional issues. The company argues the zero-commission rule amounts to an unconstitutional taking, forcing it to provide access to its intellectual property without compensation.
It also criticizes the fact that the ruling applies to all developers, not just Epic. Apple says this effectively hands competitors like Spotify, Microsoft, and Amazon free access to its platform without requiring them to pay for the underlying technologies.
This point ties into Apple’s reference to a recent Supreme Court ruling in Trump v. Casa, which held that injunctions must be narrowly tailored to the plaintiffs in a case. Since Epic is the only plaintiff, Apple argues that applying the order across the entire App Store ecosystem goes far beyond what is necessary to resolve the dispute.
What’s at Stake for Developers
The outcome could reshape the economics of app development. If the expanded injunction holds, Apple will lose a major stream of revenue tied to commissions on digital transactions. Developers, in turn, may gain greater freedom to bypass Apple’s payment system without financial penalties.
But if Apple succeeds on appeal, the company could reinstate commissions on external links and regain control over how they appear in apps. That would mark a setback for developers who have fought for years against what they view as excessive App Store fees.
For now, Apple must comply with the expanded injunction. Developers across the United States can insert links to external payment sites inside their apps without paying commissions or following Apple’s design restrictions.
This arrangement, however, is temporary. The Ninth Circuit’s upcoming ruling will determine whether Apple can reassert its control or whether developers’ newfound freedom becomes permanent.
