Apple files appeal against court ruling that mandated App Store changes
While complying with the courts and their mandated changes to the App Store as fallout from the Epic vs. Apple suit, Apple has now also filed its appeal against the ruling.
Apple is appealing against the court ruling that has mandated App Store changes
On May 1, 2025, US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to immediately make specific changes to its App Store practices, after ruling that it had failed to comply with its previous obligations. The judge specifically refused any delay, but did allow for Apple to appeal -- and it has now done so.
As first spotted by The Verge, Apple has filed its notice of appeal to the United States District Court for the district of Northern California. The filing is a short document only listing which case is being appealed against -- US District Court case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR -- and the names of Apple's legal counsel.
As yet, there is no schedule for the appeal, nor has there been any public response from the court regarding the filing. It's just the first required step in lodging the appeal that Apple had already confirmed it would do when it said "we strongly disagree" with the ruling.
Since the ruling required immediate compliance, Apple has had to implement all of the judge's orders, but will of course be hoping to reverse at least some of them. The appeal is also specifically against the ruling regarding alleged anti-competitive practices with the App Store, and has no connection with the potential criminal contempt proceedings that Judge Gonzalez Rogers is pursuing.
As part of complying with the order, Apple has had to drop its limitations on developers promoting alternatives to the App Store's in-app payment system. As a consequence, companies that had been lobbying for this change, such as Spotify, immediately updated their apps to give users the option of direct payments.
The ruling follows the years-long Epic Games versus Apple trial, which Apple won on every count bar one. That count regarded Apple's anti-steering practices that limited developers, and Apple claimed to have subsequently complied with the court's 2021 ruling on the issue.
However, Epic Games claimed that Apple's compliance instead "frustrate and effectively nullify the relief the Court ordered."
In her ruling mandating changes, Judge Gonzalez Rogers, agreed that Apple had created "new anticompetitive barriers. She said that Apple "thought this court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation."
Apple has not commented publicly on its appeal filing.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
This ruling IMO is meaningless. All this fuss over nothing. No one is going to leave the walled garden which offers the utmost in security, ease of use and convenience to go to some 3rd party and keep adding in different subscriptions everywhere. Not going to happen. Also you think Epic and big established companies iare going to reduce prices for the consumer? No way! They are keeping all that profit so again why would the consumer ever leave?!. Plus let Epic get a taste of all the logistics and customer service expenses required. They’ll be running back to Apple. This ruling is a complete non event. Have a great day!
However, anti-steering measures were deemed anti-competitive. That is important.
Further afield, in places like the EU, the changes are more far reaching. The key is that practices that stifle competition are being examined and users are now getting choice. It is up to them to decide what to do with it.
All of Apple's concessions to date have been due to pressure from different parties. That is leading to new legislative approaches and rulings (including fines).
Without them nothing would change.
This will drive more regulation and more legislation that favors fair competition. Apple's lawyers will fight but ultimately it's a benefit to let consumers decide whether or not they want to stay in the safety of the walled garden or walk through the newly opened gates.
My guess is that many would rather just give their credit card information to a handful of companies (like Apple, Amazon, Google, or Steam) rather than fill out forms on dozens and dozens of websites/apps for separate charges which increases the risk of security issues, privacy breaches, fraud, etc.
But for sure, third party merchants should have the right to provide information to consumers to let them know that they have other options.
I know that I have purchased Mac software in the past directly from the developer's own store at a discounted price compared to the Mac App Store offering. There is no reason why iPhone and iPad users shouldn't have the same choice.
Apple is however entitled to is patents. That is how we grant companies that innovate an advantage in the market. It is why Qualcomm, Eli Lilly, and more want to fund research. Without legal protection doing research would have no value to companies. Patents are not perfect but clearly enough so that companies do research.
If a product isn't having a dominant position society is giving some leeway. But for Apple to make a phone where volume buttons only work with Apple speakers... then Apple is taking the phone and using it to win in another market. Not due to the speakers but based on the phone. That is why we have antitrust legislation. We want free markets, competition, and respect for innovation. What we don't want is when Microsoft wiped out all other browsers by installing their own with Windows. Or when Microsoft had special API-calls making it impossible for other developers to create great software on their dominant platform.
Apple should IMHO focus more on insanely great products and less on job creation for lawyers.
As has been said countless times, the issue is not about the end users, who have the choice between an iPhone and an Adroid phone, but about the app developers, who want to offer their apps on both platforms because their customers are using not only iPhones but also Android phones.