Apple Loses Court Case on App Store Fees—Here's What Changes

A federal appeals court ruled this week that Apple must let app developers direct customers to payment methods outside the App Store—and cannot charge a commission on those sales. The decision is the latest chapter in a years-long legal fight between Apple and Epic Games, the company behind the game Fortnite.

What Started This Fight

In April 2025, a lower court ordered Apple to stop blocking developers from including links inside their apps that let customers buy things directly from the developer instead of through Apple. The ruling came after Epic Games argued that Apple was unfairly controlling how apps sell products and services.

This is important because Apple normally takes a 30 percent cut of any money made through in-app purchases. The court found that some of Apple's rules preventing developers from directing customers elsewhere broke California's unfair competition law.

Apple's Attempt to Comply (And Why It Didn't Work)

Apple tried to follow the court order, but in March 2024—oddly, a month before the order—Epic Games said Apple was still breaking the rules. Apple had introduced a new 27 percent fee on external purchases, which Epic said was just another way for Apple to keep taking money from sales it shouldn't be touching.

The appeals court agreed this week. It found that Apple had violated the injunction because the company was still essentially blocking what the court said developers should be allowed to do.

The court noticed something inconsistent in Apple's behavior too. Apple does not require developers who sell physical goods—like clothing or books—to warn customers before sending them to external payment systems. But Apple applied stricter rules to other types of purchases. This suggested Apple was not genuinely protecting users, but simply protecting its revenue.

What the Court Left Unsettled

The appeals court upheld the ruling that Apple violated the previous order, but it also raised new questions. The ruling creates room for Apple to argue about whether it can charge some commission on purchases that start inside an app but finish outside it.

This matters because buying things on phones is getting more complicated. A customer might see a product inside an app but complete the payment through a website or another system. The court seemed to recognize that figuring out whether Apple deserves payment in these cases is not straightforward.

The Bigger Picture

Similar rulings are happening to other tech companies. Last year, a jury found that Google had unfairly locked users into Google's own payment system on Android phones, much like Apple's control of the iPhone App Store. Courts across the country are now looking hard at how big tech platforms charge fees to app makers.

The Supreme Court chose not to take the Apple-Epic case, even though Apple asked. By staying out of it, the Court let the lower court's order stand and allowed the case to keep moving through the regular appeals system rather than setting sweeping national rules.

The broader context here is that Apple built its business partly on taking cuts from every purchase made inside iPhone apps. As courts push back on whether Apple can keep doing this, the entire system that generates billions of dollars for the company each year is under strain. It is worth noting that this is not solely about fairness—it is also changing how much money Apple can make.

For app developers, these rulings are opening a real door to sell things directly to their customers. For iPhone users, it may eventually mean different ways to buy things and possibly lower prices if developers stop paying Apple's cut. But the rules are still being written. This case will likely continue through the courts, and other cases against Apple and similar companies are moving forward in parallel.

What is actually changing, right now, is that developers have stronger legal cover to include payment links inside their apps. What remains unclear is how much Apple can charge for transactions that happen partly in its system and partly outside it—and courts will probably be deciding questions like this for years to come.