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
EU Commission Accepts X’s Plan to Address DSA Transparency Concerns

Report from MediaPost In Brief – The European Commission has announced the approval of X’s plan to address several Digital Services Act (DSA) compliance shortcomings identified by the regulator. The decision follows the €120 million fine imposed on the social media...

TikTok’s Latest EU DSA Charges Allege Failing to Protect Minors

Report from Reuters In Brief – TikTok faces fresh allegations from the European Commission that its platform design violates the EU's Digital Services Act (DSA) by failing to adequately protect minors. The preliminary findings mark the fourth DSA case opened against...

New Jersey Bans So-Called “Surveillance Pricing” for Groceries

Report from NJ.Com In Brief – New Jersey Gov. Mikie Sherrill (D) has signed the Fair Price Protection Act, banning grocery stores and third-party grocery delivery platforms from using consumers' personal data to set or vary food prices. Sherrill said the measure will...

France Officially Sets 15-Year-Old Age Threshold for Social Media

Report from the New York Times In Brief – France has become the first European country to fully approve a nationwide ban on social media for children under 15, with the law expected to take effect as early as Sept. 1. Passed by large majorities in both houses of the...

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