bbieron@platformeconomyinsights.com

Apple Still Trying to Reverse Epic Antitrust Loss at Supreme Court

May 30, 2026

Report from Reuters
In Brief – Apple has asked the US Supreme Court to review a lower court ruling that found the company in civil contempt for violating an injunction tied to its long-running legal fight with Epic Games. The Apple v Epic antitrust dispute began in 2020, when Epic sued Apple over its control of iPhone app distribution and payments. Although Federal District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers largely rejected Epic’s antitrust claims, she ruled that Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition Law and ordered Apple to allow developers to direct users to alternative payment methods outside the App Store. Apple complied by permitting external payment links, but also imposed new rules, including a 27% commission on many purchases made outside the App Store. Epic argued to Judge Gonzalez Rogers that Apple’s new policy violated her injunction, and the judge agreed, holding Apple in civil contempt and banning all fees on developers using third-party payments. Apple’s high court appeal argues that the injunction should apply only to Epic and that the company cannot be punished for violating the “spirit” of the injunction.

Context – Epic’s 2020 antitrust lawsuits against Apple and Google kicked off a global campaign to drive down app store fees. It’s been six years, but they are winning. Google, with a more open ecosystem, lost their trial. They have negotiated a global settlement with Epic for lower fees and secure third-party app stores. Despite Apple appearing to largely prevail in its trial, Gonzalez Rogers, who made it clear all along that she thought Apple’s fees were too high, imposed an injunction on Apple that proved as restrictive as what Google faced after losing. In 2024, the US Supreme Court declined to hear Apple’s appeal.  The iPhone giant then proposed lowering fees from 30% to 27%, which Gonzalez Rogers rejected out of hand, and she imposed a contempt order prohibiting any fees on developers using non-Apple payments. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals later ruled that zero commissions went too far and directed Gonzalez Rogers to determine the right level. Until that determination is made, Apple collects zero developer fees on third-party payments.

View By Monthly
Latest Blog
German Court Rules That Google Is Responsible for AI Overview Errors

Report from The Decoder In Brief – The German Regional Court of Munich has ruled that Google is directly liable for false statements produced by its AI Overviews feature. The case involves two plaintiffs who alleged that Google’s AI summaries wrongly linked their...

Florida Sues OpenAI for Creating Chatbot That Endangers Children

Report from the Washington Post In Brief – The State of Florida has filed a civil lawsuit against OpenAI and its CEO Sam Altman, alleging that ChatGPT was developed and marketed in ways that endanger children while prioritizing profit. The lawsuit...

European Commission Releases Long-Awaited Tech Sovereignty Plan

Report from the New York Times In Brief – The European Commission announced its technology sovereignty strategy to reduce dependence on foreign providers and strengthen Europe’s economic and geopolitical resilience. The initiative focuses on technology products and...

The European Commission Issues Temu a Digital Services Act Fine

Report from the New York Times In Brief – The European Union has fined the Chinese e-commerce platform Temu €200 million ($232 million) for violating the Digital Services Act (DSA) by failing to adequately identify and prevent the sale of illegal products on its...

Platform Economy Insights produces a short email four times a week that reviews two top stories with concise analysis. It is the best way to keep on top of the news you should know. Sign up for this free email here.

* indicates required