Epic Games celebrates its victory in the latest court ruling on Apple’s antitrust case
A federal district court judge found in the Epic Games vs. Apple case that Apple had willfully violated an antitrust court order. Tim Sweeney tweeted that “NO FEES” on web transactions. Game over for the Apple Tax.”
If Sweeney is correct in his interpretation of the ruling, it could be a lucrative outcome for Epic Games, whose Fortnite has been banned by Apple in the U.S., largely because of the litigation.
In a statement, a spokesperson for Apple said, “We strongly disagree with the decision. We will obey the court’s decision and appeal.” “Unlawful here and unlawful there.”
U.S. Judge Yvonne Gonzales Rogers of the District Court held Apple in contempt for her previous court ruling. She wrote, “For the reasons set forth herein, the court finds Apple in willful violation of this court’s
2021 injunction which issued to restrain and prohibit Apple’s anticompetitive conduct and
anticompetitive pricing. Apple’s continued attempts to interfere with competition will not be
tolerated.”
Sweeney noted that the case has been going on for four years, four months and 17 days.
“We will return Fortnite to the US iOS App Store next week,” said Sweeney. Epic has made a peace offer: If Apple extends its friction-free and tax-free framework to all countries, Epic will return Fortnite worldwide to the App Store and end any current or future litigation. Gonzales Rogers stated in her ruling that Apple’s response was “beyond belief”. The truth was revealed after two rounds of evidentiary proceedings. Apple, knowing that it was bound by the Injunction, continued to engage in anticompetitive behavior solely for its own revenue. Apple was surprised to believe that the Court would not be able to see through their obvious cover-up. (The 2024 evidentiary proceedings). The Court wanted to reveal Apple’s real decision-making processes, and not just the litigation-oriented one. It ordered the production of documents in real time, and held a second round of hearings 2025.
Apple’s response: charge a 27% commission (again tied to nothing) on off-app purchases, where it had previously charged nothing, and extend the commission for a period of seven days after the consumer linked-out of the app. Apple responded by charging a 27% (once again tied to nothing), on off-app purchase, where previously it charged nothing. It also extended the commission period for seven days after a consumer links-out of an app. Two, the Court had prohibited Apple from denying developers the ability to communicate with, and direct consumers to, other
purchasing mechanisms. Apple’s response: impose new barriers and new requirements to increase
friction and increase breakage rates with full page “scare” screens, static URLs, and generic
statements. Apple’s objective is to discourage customers from using alternative purchasing opportunities and maintain its anticompetitive income stream. In the end, Apple sought to maintain a revenue
stream worth billions in direct defiance of this Court’s Injunction.”
The judge said that “in stark contrast to Apple’s initial in-court testimony,” the documents revealed that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option. The judge said that Alex Roman, the vice president of finance at Apple, lied on the oath to hide the truth. Tim Cook had ignored Phillip Schiller, who advocated for Apple to comply with the injunction. Instead, he allowed Chief Financial Office Luca Maestri, and his finance department, to convince him that this was not true. Cook made a poor choice. The evidence presented here is more than sufficient to prove a violation. The court refers the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate.”
In 2021, the judge found in Apple’s favor on most antitrust issues, but she said that Apple went too far when it told developers that they could not advertise lower off-app-store prices to consumers inside their own apps that were subject to Apple’s 30% fee. Apple and Epic appealed after the 2021 ruling that Apple violated antitrust laws by preventing developers from directing customers to lower prices. The case was then heard by the U.S. Supreme Court. The court ruled that the judge’s decision was correct and handed Epic a big defeat. But today, the judge wrote: “This is not a negotiation, but an injunction.” Once a party has willfully ignored a court order, there is no going back. The court will not tolerate further delays. The court will not accept any further delays. Apple must comply with the previous order. Apple is prohibited from taking any new anticompetitive actions to avoid complying with the injunction. Effective immediately Apple will no longer impede developers’ ability to communicate with users nor will they levy or impose a new commission on off-app purchases.”
That could prompt a lot of game developers to follow Epic Games and create their own web shops or alternatives to Apple’s store, opening the floodgates as those developers can no longer be punished by Apple for seeking to circumvent its 30% fees.
Joost Van Dreunen is a game analyst and the author of One Up. He wrote in his newsletter that this is the first instance a U.S. Court has called Apple’s Platform Fee what it is, rent-seeking. This doesn’t mean that the 30% fee cut is over, but that the fee structure will be scrutinized more closely, especially if it’s designed to appear compliant, while still stifling the competition. It was designed to maintain the cash flow from the world’s most lucrative digital tollbooth.” It was engineered to maintain the cash flow from the world’s most lucrative digital tollbooth.”
Van Dreunen added, “The court further found Apple’s actions to be a deliberate attempt to preserve its supracompetitive margins–profits that exceed what would exist in a truly competitive market.”
And he concluded, “By establishing that rent-seeking behaviors warrant not just civil penalties but potential criminal consequences, the court has dramatically altered the risk calculus for dominant platforms. This precedent will spread to adjacent markets and lead to a cascade of changes: more aggressive regulation, proactive platform concessions, and sophisticated developer strategies for reclaiming economic agency. Stay informed! Receive the latest news daily in your email
Read Our Privacy Policy
Thank you for subscribing. Click here to see more VB Newsletters.
An error occured.
