Epic Games vs. Apple Judgment Allows App Store Developers to Link to Alternative Payment Methods

A decision was reached today in the high-profile Epic Games v. Apple trial, with U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruling that Apple's anti-steering conduct is anti-competitive, and ruling in favor of Apple on all other counts.

app store blue banner epic 1
In a 185-page ruling, Judge Rogers said "the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws," but she said the trial "did show that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive conduct under California's competition laws." Rogers concluded that "Apple's anti-steering provisions hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice":

Having defined the relevant market as digital mobile gaming transactions, the Court next evaluated Apple's conduct in that market. Given the trial record, the Court cannot ultimately conclude that Apple is a monopolist under either federal or state antitrust laws. While the Court finds that Apple enjoys considerable market share of over 55% and extraordinarily high profit margins, these factors alone do not show antitrust conduct. Success is not illegal. The final trial record did not include evidence of other critical factors, such as barriers to entry and conduct decreasing output or decreasing innovation in the relevant market. The Court does not find that it is impossible; only that Epic Games failed in its burden to demonstrate Apple is an illegal monopolist.

Nonetheless, the trial did show that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive conduct under California's competition laws. The Court concludes that Apple’s anti-steering provisions hide critical information from consumers and illegally stifle consumer choice. When coupled with Apple's incipient antitrust violations, these anti-steering provisions are anticompetitive and a nationwide remedy to eliminate those provisions is warranted.

Judge Rogers thus issued a permanent injunction that requires Apple to let U.S. developers direct customers to payment options other than Apple's in-app purchase system:

Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any person in active concert or participation with them ("Apple"), are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.

Apple already announced last week that, starting in early 2022, it would allow developers of "reader" apps like Netflix, Spotify, and the Amazon Kindle app to include an in-app link to their website for users to set up or manage an account. If this ruling is upheld, however, Apple will be required to extend this allowance to all types of apps. The ruling also ensures that developers would be able to explicitly mention alternative payment options.

The saga began in August 2020, when Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store after Epic Games introduced a direct payment option in the app, in defiance of the App Store rules. In an orchestrated move, Epic Games promptly filed a lawsuit against Apple, accusing Apple of having a monopoly over the sale of apps and in-app purchases through the App Store. (See our timeline of events surrounding the trial for more details.)

Judge Rogers ruled that Epic Games shall pay damages equal to 30% of the $12,167,719 in revenue that Epic Games collected from users in the Fortnite app on iOS through the direct payment option between August 2020 and October 2020, plus 30% of any such revenue Epic Games collected from November 1, 2020 through the date of judgment, plus interest.

Apple is likely to appeal the decision. We've reached out to the company for comment and we will update this story if we hear back.

Update: Apple has issued the following statement, as shared by Nick Statt:

Today the Court has affirmed what we've known all along: the App Store is not in violation of antitrust law. As the Court recognized 'success is not illegal.' Apple faces rigorous competition in every segment in which we do business, and we believe customers and developers choose us because our products and services are the best in the world. We remain committed to ensuring the App Store is a safe and trusted marketplace that supports a thriving developer community and more than 2.1 million U.S. jobs, and where rules apply equally to everyone.

The court documents associated with the ruling are embedded below.

Popular Stories

iphone 16 display

iPhone 17's Scratch Resistant Anti-Reflective Display Coating Canceled

Monday April 28, 2025 12:48 pm PDT by
Apple may have canceled the super scratch resistant anti-reflective display coating that it planned to use for the iPhone 17 Pro models, according to a source with reliable information that spoke to MacRumors. Last spring, Weibo leaker Instant Digital suggested Apple was working on a new anti-reflective display layer that was more scratch resistant than the Ceramic Shield. We haven't heard...
apple watch ultra yellow

What's Next for the Apple Watch Ultra 3 and Apple Watch SE 3

Friday April 25, 2025 2:44 pm PDT by
This week marks the 10th anniversary of the Apple Watch, which launched on April 24, 2015. Yesterday, we recapped features rumored for the Apple Watch Series 11, but since 2015, the Apple Watch has also branched out into the Apple Watch Ultra and the Apple Watch SE, so we thought we'd take a look at what's next for those product lines, too. 2025 Apple Watch Ultra 3 Apple didn't update the...
iPhone 17 Air Pastel Feature

iPhone 17 Reaches Key Milestone Ahead of Mass Production

Monday April 28, 2025 8:44 am PDT by
Apple has completed Engineering Validation Testing (EVT) for at least one iPhone 17 model, according to a paywalled preview of an upcoming DigiTimes report. iPhone 17 Air mockup based on rumored design The EVT stage involves Apple testing iPhone 17 prototypes to ensure the hardware works as expected. There are still DVT (Design Validation Test) and PVT (Production Validation Test) stages to...
Beyond iPhone 13 Better Blue

20th Anniversary iPhone Likely to Be Made in China Due to 'Extraordinarily Complex' Design

Monday April 28, 2025 4:29 am PDT by
Apple will likely manufacture its 20th anniversary iPhone models in China, despite broader efforts to shift production to India, according to Bloomberg's Mark Gurman. In 2027, Apple is planning a "major shake-up" for the iPhone lineup to mark two decades since the original model launched. Gurman's previous reporting indicates the company will introduce a foldable iPhone alongside a "bold"...
iPhone 17 Air Pastel Feature

iPhone 17 Air Launching Later This Year With These 16 New Features

Thursday April 24, 2025 8:24 am PDT by
While the so-called "iPhone 17 Air" is not expected to launch until September, there are already plenty of rumors about the ultra-thin device. Overall, the iPhone 17 Air sounds like a mixed bag. While the device is expected to have an impressively thin and light design, rumors indicate it will have some compromises compared to iPhone 17 Pro models, including only a single rear camera, a...
iPhone 17 Pro Blue Feature Tighter Crop

iPhone 17 Pro Launching Later This Year With These 13 New Features

Wednesday April 23, 2025 8:31 am PDT by
While the iPhone 17 Pro and iPhone 17 Pro Max are not expected to launch until September, there are already plenty of rumors about the devices. Below, we recap key changes rumored for the iPhone 17 Pro models as of April 2025: Aluminum frame: iPhone 17 Pro models are rumored to have an aluminum frame, whereas the iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 16 Pro models have a titanium frame, and the iPhone ...
iphone 17 air iphone 16 pro

iPhone 17 Air USB-C Port May Have This Unusual Design Quirk

Wednesday April 30, 2025 3:59 am PDT by
Apple is preparing to launch a dramatically thinner iPhone this September, and if recent leaks are anything to go by, the so-called iPhone 17 Air could boast one of the most radical design shifts in recent years. iPhone 17 Air dummy model alongside iPhone 16 Pro (credit: AppleTrack) At just 5.5mm thick (excluding a slightly raised camera bump), the 6.6-inch iPhone 17 Air is expected to become ...

Top Rated Comments

JPack Avatar
48 months ago
Common sense decision by judge.

But there are far too many Stockholm syndrome posters here trying to defend Apple.
Score: 53 Votes (Like | Disagree)
mrat93 Avatar
48 months ago
Apple: *loses for the third time this month*

MR users: hahaha Epic is so pathetic. can’t wait for Apple to CRUSH them
Score: 45 Votes (Like | Disagree)
GizmoDVD Avatar
48 months ago
Really bad outcome for Epic. They wanted to be able to add their own store and collect 100% off everything and now they get...nothing.

To buy an app or iAP, its a tap of the button through Apple. This new way means for Epic, people would have to click a link, get re-directed to a website, enter in their credit card info (setup an account?) all for maybe a small discount

Epic wanted it side-by-side.

Huge massive blow to Epic, who also now owes millions to Apple.
Score: 44 Votes (Like | Disagree)
B-Mc-C Avatar
48 months ago
Surprised nobody is reporting that Apple is permitted to terminate Epic’s primary and subsidiary developer accounts. No more Fortnite on the App Store, no more development of Unreal Engine. Love it! See page 180 of the ruling, attached here.

Attachment Image
Score: 29 Votes (Like | Disagree)
Khalmoon Avatar
48 months ago
Apple should put a game in the epic game store, and then demand that Apple pay be an option for payment on that game.
Score: 23 Votes (Like | Disagree)
ugahairydawgs Avatar
48 months ago
Seems like the obvious middle ground. No alternate app stores (and the security issues that come with them), but instead a way to link out for payments that will likely only benefit the big fish (Amazon, Netflix, Disney, etc). For most users and small developers I don't know if this will change a lot.
Score: 19 Votes (Like | Disagree)