Epic v. Apple: A Contempt Ruling That Shatters the Anti-Steering Wall
Epic Games’ first major victory came in its long-running battle with Apple, a fight that began in 2020 when Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store after Epic introduced a direct payment option in violation of Apple’s rules. The ensuing trial in 2021 produced a mixed verdict: Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected most of Epic’s federal antitrust claims, finding that Apple did not operate an illegal monopoly under the Sherman Act. But she also ruled that Apple’s anti-steering provisions—rules that prevented developers from telling users about cheaper purchasing options outside the App Store—violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. The court issued an injunction requiring Apple to allow developers to include external links and calls to action in their apps.
Apple’s response became the center of the next phase. Rather than complying fully, Apple allowed external links but imposed a 27% commission on purchases made through them, required developers to apply for a special entitlement, and displayed frightening warnings to users. Judge Rogers found that this was not good-faith compliance. In April 2025, she held Apple in civil contempt, ruling that the company had deliberately violated the injunction. She prohibited Apple from charging any commission on purchases made outside the app after a user followed an external link, barred restrictions on buttons and calls to action, and blocked the use of scare screens or misleading warnings. She also referred the matter to federal prosecutors for possible criminal contempt. Apple has appealed, but the ruling already marks a profound shift: the wall between the App Store and the open web has been legally breached.
Epic v. Google: Antitrust Liability and a Forced Opening of Android
If the Apple case was about anti-steering, the Google case struck at the core structure of Android app distribution. In December 2023, a federal jury in San Francisco found that Google had unlawfully maintained monopoly power through the Google Play Store and Google Play Billing. The jury concluded that Google’s agreements with developers, device makers, and carriers illegally stifled competition, and that its billing system forced developers to use Google’s payment rails while paying commissions as high as 30%. The verdict was a rare antitrust loss for a major platform and gave Epic a much broader victory than it had won against Apple.
In October 2024, Judge James Donato issued a permanent injunction designed to open Android to competition. The order required Google to allow third-party app stores to be distributed through the Play Store, to permit developers to use alternative in-app billing systems, and to stop requiring Google Play Billing for apps distributed on Android. It also restricted Google from entering anti-competitive deals with developers, OEMs, and carriers that discouraged rival stores or payment systems. Google appealed, and the injunction was temporarily paused, but in 2025 the Ninth Circuit allowed it to take effect while the appeal continues. The practical consequences are enormous. Android users in the United States may soon see competing app stores, alternative checkout flows, and lower prices, while Google must prove that its remaining fees are tied to real services rather than monopoly maintenance. The jury’s verdict and the remedy together transform Android from a tightly controlled ecosystem into a more contested marketplace.
What the Victory Means for Developers, Consumers, and Competition
For developers, the rulings attack the economics of mobile software distribution. Apple and Google have long taken 15% to 30% of digital sales, including subscriptions, in-app purchases, and virtual goods. Those commissions are a major cost for independent studios, subscription services, and creators. By allowing external links and alternative billing, the courts give developers a way to process payments directly, communicate with customers, and avoid platform fees. Smaller developers, who often operate on thin margins, stand to benefit the most. They can offer lower prices, run promotions outside the app store, and keep more revenue. Epic has also signaled that it will use the opening to bring the Epic Games Store and Fortnite back to mobile platforms in a more competitive form.
For consumers, the changes could mean more choice and lower prices. When developers can point users to web checkout, they may pass on some savings. Competing app stores could create new discovery opportunities, bundles, and exclusive titles. Alternative billing systems could offer different subscription management tools. At the same time, the rulings raise legitimate concerns about security, privacy, fraud, and parental controls. Apple and Google argue that their closed systems protect users from malware, scams, and payment risk. The courts have not dismissed those concerns, but they have ruled that platform gatekeepers cannot use security as a blanket excuse to eliminate competition. The challenge ahead is to build safeguards that are transparent, proportionate, and not designed primarily to preserve commissions. If done well, the mobile economy can become more open without becoming lawless.
The Road Ahead: Appeals, Global Regulation, and the Open Mobile Economy
The legal fight is far from over. Apple is appealing the contempt ruling, and Google is appealing both the antitrust verdict and the injunction. Those appeals could reach the Supreme Court, and the final rules may be narrowed, delayed, or expanded depending on how higher courts interpret antitrust law and the scope of injunctions. Compliance will also be contested. Apple and Google may design new fee structures, security reviews, or notarization requirements that preserve control in subtler ways. Epic and other developers will likely return to court if they believe the platforms are evading the spirit of the rulings. The next few years will therefore be a battle over implementation as much as principle.
Beyond the United States, the trend is unmistakable. The European Union’s Digital Markets Act has already forced Apple to allow alternative app stores and browser engines in the EU, and Google has adjusted its practices under the same law. The United Kingdom, Japan, South Korea, Australia, and Brazil are pursuing their own rules to curb app store gatekeeping. Epic’s U.S. victories add momentum to this global movement. They establish a powerful precedent: mobile platforms may operate stores and payment systems, but they cannot use technical barriers, contractual restrictions, and retaliatory fees to prevent rivals from competing. The open mobile economy is not yet a reality, but the legal architecture that kept it closed is finally cracking.
