The long antitrust battle between Apple and Epic Games about the App Store The saga in the United States has taken another decisive turn. A federal appeals court has confirmed that the Cupertino company disobeyed a previous court order, but at the same time has granted it leeway to continue charging commissions on certain purchases made outside of its official store.
This latest twist puts it back under scrutiny the business model and the App Store internal rulesThis is an issue being closely followed in Spain and the rest of Europe due to its similarity to the debates taking place in Brussels regarding the power of large digital platforms. At the heart of the conflict remain the same questions: who controls the payment methods, what share of the revenue does the platform keep, and to what extent can these conditions be considered restrictive of competition?
Ninth Circuit ruling: contempt upheld and 27% review
In a 54-page ruling, the United States Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that Apple knowingly violated the order issued in 2021 by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez RogersThat instruction required developers to inform users and redirect them to alternative payment systems on the web, where prices are often more affordable than in-app purchases.
The higher court upheld the contempt finding but considered the initial corrective measures excessive. In the opinion of the three-judge panel, completely block any type of commission on transactions managed through external links It represented a disproportionate use of the district court's discretion.
The court acknowledges that Apple is entitled to some compensation for the use of its technology and intellectual property when Its infrastructure is used indirectly in purchases made outside of the App StoreHowever, it makes clear that such remuneration must be limited to costs that are "genuine and reasonably necessary" to coordinate the operation of external links and guarantee the security of the system.
What the judges do categorically reject is the 27% commission that Apple set for the revenue earned through those linksThat percentage left the burden for developers very close to the standard 30% that applies to traditional in-app purchases, which, according to the court, contradicted the purpose of the original order: to create a real space for more competitive payment methods.
As a result of this interpretation, the matter now returns to Judge Gonzalez Rogers' office, who will have to redefine Which commission structure fits the criteria set by the Ninth Circuit?The final figure will determine whether the victory achieved by Epic Games and other developers remains a primarily symbolic triumph or has a direct economic impact on the industry.
How the clash began: Fortnite, direct payments, and a closed ecosystem
The origin of this conflict dates back several years, when Epic Games decided to stand up to the App Store's payment and commission system.For a long time, Apple has required that in-app purchases be processed exclusively through its own billing system, with rates that are usually between 15% and 30% of the amount.
In 2020, Epic took another step by introducing in Fortnite a direct payment method that circumvented Apple's commissions within the game itself. The Cupertino company's response was immediate: it removed Fortnite from the App Store, and, simultaneously, Google did the same on the Android Play Store. From there, the dispute went to court with antitrust lawsuits against both tech giants.
Following a trial held in 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled largely in favor of Apple with regard to federal antitrust legislationThe court reasoned that the company did not fully fit the classic definition of an illegal monopoly in the United States. However, it did find a violation of California antitrust law, a distinction that ultimately proved decisive.
Under that state law, the judge ordered Apple to allow developers to inform and guide users towards potentially cheaper online payment alternativeswhich included the possibility of adding links to external websitesThis small crack in the App Store wall was later ratified by the Ninth Circuit itself and, later still, by the US Supreme Court.
Apple reacted by enabling those links, but accompanied the opening with a new commission. 27% on revenue generated outside the storeFor Epic and many other studios, that fee seemed too much like an accounting trick to leave the financial burden borne by developers almost untouched, since the real difference with the internal 30% was quite small.
Epic's strategy and the economic weight of the App Store
Faced with the implementation of that 27%, Epic Games returned to court to claim that Apple was emptying the 2021 ruling of its contentThe editor questioned not only the high percentage, but also the limitations the company imposed on the size, location, and design of external links within applications.
According to Epic, these practical restrictions made the new system largely useless in reality. since they made it difficult for the user to easily find and use alternative payment methodsIn his opinion, Apple was only complying with the order on paper, but continued to discourage developers from taking advantage of external billing options.
After learning of the Ninth Circuit's decision, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney interpreted the ruling as a major blow to Apple's strategy to maintain commissions almost equivalent to those of the App Store even when payment is made outside the platform. The nuance that only "reasonable" costs can be passed on opens the door, according to their interpretation, to a more balanced model between platforms and software creators.
From this perspective, it might make sense for Apple to charge. fees linked to specific tasks such as application review, security, or technical coordinationBut not a recurring percentage of all revenue generated through channels outside its payment system. Epic argues that this boundary is what separates charging for genuine services from a potential abuse of its power.
All this tension is occurring while the App Store continues to be one of the major drivers of Apple's services businessThe company does not detail down to the cent how much it earns from its app store, but boasts about the figures it generates for third parties: it claims that in 2024 alone, more than $400.000 billion in sales were facilitated for developers through its ecosystem.
Reading from Spain and the European Union: DMA, competition and commissions
Although the litigation is being resolved in US courts based on California law, Its implications are felt far beyond the borders of the U.S.Regulators from around the world, including the European Commission, chinese authorities And authorities such as the CNMC in Spain are watching this dispute very closely because it raises questions almost identical to those addressed within the European framework.
In the European Union, the immediate point of reference is the Digital Markets Law (DMA)which sets specific obligations for large platforms categorized as “gatekeepers of access.” Among other points, these platforms must allow alternative app stores, accept third-party payment systems, and avoid retaliation against those who opt for external billing solutions that compete with the platform's own.
For Spanish and European developers, the failure of Circuit 9 is perceived as This is another sign that the commission and restriction model in app stores is being increasingly questioned.Although the decision is not legally binding in Europe, it reinforces the idea that both courts and regulators are showing less patience with excessively closed ecosystems.
Users in Spain could experience indirect effects if, in response to the regulatory and judicial environment, Apple decides align their policies globally and not just country by countryA potential reduction in commissions or an effective opening to external payment systems could, on paper, translate into more competitive prices, more promotions, and greater competition in digital content, from games to subscription services.
At the same time, the US ruling itself acknowledges that The infrastructure that Apple makes available to developers has a cost and a valueDevelopment tools, security systems, a global distribution channel, update management, and visibility in a gigantic market. The challenge for European authorities, including Brussels, will be to draw the line between legitimate compensation for these services and a potential abuse of a dominant position.
A conflict that will continue to shape the agenda of major platforms
The new resolution does not end the controversy, but it does It reconfigures the terrain on which the next phases of the Apple vs Epic case will be fought.Judge Gonzalez Rogers will now have to determine what type of commission she considers acceptable for purchases made outside the App Store, and that figure will be examined in detail by the technology industry and competition authorities.
For Apple, the big challenge is adjust its policies without giving the impression that it is losing control of its ecosystemTo date, the company has made reasonable concessions in each region when pressured by regulators or judges, but without abandoning the idea that its closed model provides security and a more controlled user experience.
Epic Games, for its part, emerges strengthened from this episode by managing to An appeals court upholds Apple's contempt ruling and orders a review of the 27%.This legal endorsement supports their argument for a more open and competitive app market, although it also makes clear that large platforms will continue to have some leeway to charge for services related to their intellectual property.
Beyond these two main characters, The entire developer ecosystem that relies on app stores is watching to see what will now be considered a "reasonable price".The economic viability of many business models will depend on that definition, from small independent studios with a single game to large companies that base a good part of their income on subscriptions and digital services.
In an environment where a few platforms concentrate a large part of the application distribution, Every ruling that touches on the commission model sends a signal to the rest of the sectorThe underlying debate is whether access to millions of users can continue to be almost entirely dictated by the rules set by a single provider, and if so, at what price and with what external controls.
Everything that happened in the battle between Apple and Epic for the App Store has already become a benchmark for analysis How will the interests of big tech companies, the expectations of developers, and the rights of consumers be balanced? In the coming years, both in the United States and in Spain and the rest of Europe, authorities are taking careful note of every step in this legal battle to guide their future decisions on digital competition.
