'Fortnite' antisteering mandate punishment 'fundamentally unfair' says Apple

AppleInsider

Apple's fight for compensation on sales made external to the App Store continues as it asks the 9th Circuit Court to undo the "unduly punitive" mandate set by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rodgers.

Apple's external linking commissions are still being blocked by court order

Apple was told it willfully violated a 2021 injunction that wasn't enforced until 2024 and must remove all barriers to external app purchases and linking. A stay on the order was requested and denied, but the fight continues.

According to a report from Law360, Apple has urged the Ninth Circuit Court to throw out the mandate set by the judge. Apple called the order to allow external linking and zero commission on external purchases "unduly punitive" and "fundamentally unfair."

These appeal processes can take months, even years. Expect a back and forth from Apple, Epic, and the courts.

Apple's latest appeal

Apple doesn't pull any punches in the latest court filing. It suggests that the latest mandate has no basis in the original injunction, violates the Unfair Competition Law in California, and violates the U.S. Constitution.

The filing describes the mandate as a punishment that forces Apple to set its royalty to zero for a large category of transactions. However, civil contempt can't be used to punish in this case.

Apple also finds issue with the idea that finding Apple's 27% commission too high should result in lowering it to zero. The company states that it understands that it was found to have not complied with the original injunction, and regrets that, but the solution is a penalty and inconsistent with the UCL.

Several requests of the 9th Circuit Court were made, including throwing out the new injunction, reversing the civil contempt finding, and reassigning the case to a new judge if the case goes back to the district court.

Apple's one loss in the Epic case

All of this is happening as a result of the Epic vs Apple trial. Apple won against Epic on every front except one -- anti-steering.

Apple won on nearly every count against Epic. Image source: Epic

Apple was compelled to allow app developers to link externally, but there wasn't any clear definition on what this meant. So, Apple implemented a complicated external linking solution that rendered it functionally useless.

Epic complained in March 2025 about the implementation, which resulted in the Judge saying Apple violated the court's order. Discovery also revealed that Apple's internal discussions around the topic went against the spirit of the order on purpose.

The complaints and allegations of Apple executives lying under oath resulted in a significant response from the Judge. It isn't clear where all of this will lead, but developers are already taking advantage of the free ride opened up by the mandate.



Read on AppleInsider

foregoneconclusion

The 9th Circuit is the same court that ruled a 1795 statute which specifies invasion, rebellion, or inability to execute federal law as the only ways for the Executive to control the state national guard as being perfectly appropriate for a situation where individuals used their free speech rights to protest government actions in CA and some other individuals committed acts of vandalism (like setting Waymo taxis on fire which are not government property).

9secondkox2

Apple did nothing wrong. 

Epic created a gigantic case just to get the courts to settle for something smaller. Unfortunately it worked. 

And now apple is supposed to give free access to competitors. 

Apple has the right to charge whatever they want. If they want to charge a developer 99% for being listed on the store, they can do thst. 

But they’d lose partners. That’s how the free market works. 

27% is fair. And if they want to go to 20%, that’s fair too. 

But to try to force them to take nothing? That’s criminal. 

meson

9secondkox2 said:

Apple did nothing wrong. 

Epic created a gigantic case just to get the courts to settle for something smaller. Unfortunately it worked. 

And now apple is supposed to give free access to competitors. 

Apple has the right to charge whatever they want. If they want to charge a developer 99% for being listed on the store, they can do thst. 

But they’d lose partners. That’s how the free market works. 

27% is fair. And if they want to go to 20%, that’s fair too. 

But to try to force them to take nothing? That’s criminal. 

"Apple has a right to charge whatever they want." Really. You do understand that your the one who is paying at the end, correct. Don't you want competition on the iPhone? Or are you just happy with Apple just charging "whatever they want". 

This is just like tariffs. 😒

wonkothesane

Meson said:

9secondkox2 said:

Apple did nothing wrong. 

Epic created a gigantic case just to get the courts to settle for something smaller. Unfortunately it worked. 

And now apple is supposed to give free access to competitors. 

Apple has the right to charge whatever they want. If they want to charge a developer 99% for being listed on the store, they can do thst. 

But they’d lose partners. That’s how the free market works. 

27% is fair. And if they want to go to 20%, that’s fair too. 

But to try to force them to take nothing? That’s criminal. 

"Apple has a right to charge whatever they want." Really. You do understand that your the one who is paying at the end, correct. Don't you want competition on the iPhone? Or are you just happy with Apple just charging "whatever they want". 

This is just like tariffs. 😒

I think both of you have a point. In a free market, in generally good products prevail, bad ones disappear. From that POV one can argue that “let Apple charge whatever they want, if this leads to loosing developers, and through this to loosing customers, they either change, or go down.” The reason for this is exactly what you stated: The customer has to decide whether the value-proposition of Apple is still attractive enough to pay for it. Just because I wish it would be cheaper, more competitive etc, does not make it happen, or a legal requirement. Just like you cannot demand Ferrari to make more affordable cars, or have them implement certain features, just because you wish for it. I also am somewhat sceptical  regarding developers complaining, since they knew the rules from day one, and willingly agreed to the terms. Saying “I do not earn enough, and others charge less, but I cannot move to a different platform because I am more or less depending on this platform” is actual reality in many other industry areas, e.g. the supply chain in automotive often has tier 1s or tier 2s squeezed to the last drop, while fully depending on the OEM. You can argue to wheat extent this is 

On the other hand, there is a concern that companies abuse their actual market power. Which IMHO can go in the way of Amazon, squashing competition by being loss leader, or by stepwise deteriorating conditions, which can also mean, not changing while competition becomes cheaper across the line. IIRC, Apple is on the latter side. My interpretation of what is going on more or less in all relevant markets is that government takes the view that Smartphones have become an indispensable part of our lives, and hence some “FRAND” rules should apply, not matter which manufacturer, or service provider, in order to prevent a perceived abuse. 

Both sides have a point, and I think overall also regulators and courts have to find their position in a non black-and-white field, which is obviously also heavily lobbied by the affected companies, and on top a political item of discussion.