Epic Games v. Apple judge: Apple can no longer force developers to use in-app purchasing

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers handed down a decision in the Epic Games v. Apple trial on Friday. Rogers issued an injunction that said that Apple will no longer be allowed to prohibit developers from providing links or other communications that direct users away from Apple in-app purchasing.

Epic Games' Fortnite violated Apple's App Store guidelines
Epic Games’ Fortnite violated Apple’s App Store guidelines

Kif Leswing for CNBC:

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers handed down a decision in a closely-watched trial between Apple and Epic Games on Friday.

Rogers ordered an injunction that said that Apple will no longer be allowed to prohibit developers from providing links or other communications that direct users away from Apple in-app purchasing, of which it takes 15% to 30%.

The decision concludes the first part of the battle between the two companies over Apple’s App Store policies and whether they stifle competition. Apple won on 9 of 10 counts but will be forced to change its App Store policies and loosen its grip over in-app purchases.

The trial took place in Oakland, California in May, and included both company CEOs testifying in open court. People familiar with the trial previously told CNBC that both sides expected the decision to be appealed regardless of what it was.

MacDailyNews Take: Rodgers says that Apple will no longer be allowed to prohibit developers from providing links or other communications that direct users away from Apple in-app purchasing.

You know, because Best Buy and Target are forced by a judge’s injunction to place signs next to each product that advertise lower prices for the same items at Walmart.

Oh, wait, they aren’t forced to do that by some ditzy judge. Because it’s ludicrous, illogical, and just plan wrong.

Apple should appeal Roger’s injunction and/or if developers like Epic Games want to advertise lower prices using Apple’s App Store, Apple should simply charge an in-store advertising fee. We suggest it be 15% for developers making under $1 million per year and 30% for those making $1 million or more annually. 🙂


  1. Seems to me Apple should restructure their fees. Charge 3% (or not) for card prccessing, and 12% store placement fees for under a million dollars in revenue and 27% for store placement on over a million dollars revenue. Zero revenue apps are still free.

    1. Youre one of the few people that get it.

      Apple completely won. All the bogus antitrust garbage was thrown out, rightly. And this was even by a commie California (I know I repeat myself) court.

      The only thing left was some California law on information disclosure requiring links, something apple had recently implemented and allowed anyway. Good luck with people clicking a link to go to another store, and enter their payment information a new there. Will only reinforce how good apple’s systems are. Further, it’s questionable if the California law on disclosure is itself constitutional, and I suspect will be appealed.

      This was a complete slam dunk win for apple.

      That the tech press has its head up its rear and doesnt get it or doesnt want to get it for clickbait is just par for the course of their ineptitude.

      1. Like I’ve been saying, this is all bs clickbait by idiots in the press. Apple won this. No one is putting alternative pay buttons into the App Store. This is noise.

        Told you.

        “No, the Epic v. Apple injunction absolutely positively DOESN’T allow developers to incorporate ‘buttons’ for alternative IN-APP payment mechanisms”

        And this comes from an idiot that was rooting for Epic to win:

        “I’ve been rooting for Epic, and I wish everyone were as honest as Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney after losing a court battle. But I’m absolutely committed to telling people the truth.”

        And even this dimwitted turnip sees it despite being snowed by lying bastage Tim Scammy.

  2. Well, I guess it could have been worse but this is a stupid ruling. I fully expect the Playstation Store to show links to other places where I can buy a game based on this precedent.

  3. I owned and operated a very successful retail store for 25+ years and would have NOT permitted any of my numerous suppliers from advertising their websites inside of my store for ad ons, replacement parts, discounted gift certificates, etc. If they didn’t like these simple conditions – we went our separate ways – end of story.

  4. Appeal imminent. This will be overturned. If you install aftermarket parts on your car’s engine you void the warranty. No judge is going to force GM to open up 3rd party access to the Chevy Bolt engine for modification, yet still honor the warranty. So by loading Fornite with side-loaded Apps, the judge is allowing users to break their iOS EULA and the phone would be considered Jail-broken and ineligible for Apple Care.

    1. this story is being reported poorly – I’m wrong above… there is no side-loading of apps or alternate App Store, as initially thought. Only a few big companies will try to set up alternate payments. It’s not very convenient or easy to do for most developers. It’s not going to affect Apple’s bottom line,

  5. The Judge is right and yet again Apple are shown to be wrong. Apple just loves to force people to do things their way. For all you muppets that don’t understand the logic of owning a device that is meant to be yours, why should users be forced to do the Apple way – if you can’t choose yourself then you don’t actually own that device and you’re sucked into to the hell-hole Apple ecosystem.
    As for Apple being more secure – don’t believe the hype.

  6. Let the Socialism continue! Government telling businesses what to do – killing them in the process. If anyone had a clue how much a car is developed based on regulations, people would fall out of their chairs. It’s amazing we have cars at all!!!

    Then when the businesses fail, and foreign companies thrive government says “not our fault!” Laughable…

    Apple should fight like crap against this. Or go the license fee route, based on dollars made off app sales… Many ways to skin this cat.

    I LOVE the advertising fee play. It is TRULY the company advertising “doin’t buy from these guys that made this entire platform awesome and spent billions doing it. Don’t give them a dime, line our pockets all the more over here!”

    Uh yes, that’s called advertising 100%. Easy – seemingly easy victory – when THAT gets taken to court, but our judges – many of them, insane monsters who believe they can write the law.

    Apple is NOT a monopoly not even close. They ahve closed systems, like a refrigerator, a car, on and on, and they can do what they want. Oh wait, evidently not. Ugh…

  7. On the one hand, this is a win for Apple… but it also reminds me of how despised Amazon is by businesses. If you use “Fulfilled by Amazon” (and many, many do) you are not ALLOWED to discount your merchandise on your store.

    I really dislike this policy of a giant store able to dictate your pricing model. Surely you should be able to incentivize people to buy directly for you. Smaller places take advantage of the ease of use of the App Store or “Amazon store” but as a company grows, the logistics tell you it’s cheaper to do it yourself… so you do that.

    It’s like how Apple used to pay fees to buy Off the shelf chips, but over time, they designed their own and took on that themselves. It’s a normal business process.

    You should be able to dictate terms on your own store… but dictating prices outside of it… kind of insane.

    That being said… they’re not the ONLY ones who do this… Store from Walmart has these policies in place to cement the idea that they offer the cheapest prices so you should use them as a one-stop-shop.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.