By Lily Fagin and Matthew Cantor
Earlier this month, the Ninth Circuit largely affirmed the Northern District of California’s holding that Apple had violated its injunction in Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc, No. 4:20-cv-05640- YGR (N.D. Cal.) and, thus, was in contempt of court.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers entered that injunction after she found that Apple’s restrictions on developers who made their apps available in Apple’s App Store violated California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”). Specifically, she found that App Store rules prohibiting developers from steering consumers to less costly payment methods for app-related purchases violated the UCL.
In its recent decision, the Ninth Circuit agreed with Judge Gonzalez Rogers that Apple’s post-injunction conduct—charging a 27% commission on app-related purchases made outside of the App Store and implementing extensive link restrictions—violated the injunction.
The Circuit, however, did curtail Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ order remedying Apple’s contempt. The panel found that Judge Gonzalez Rogers went too far in barring Apple from charging any commission because the original injunction only outlawed prohibitive commissions. On remand, the parties will fight it out to determine exactly how much Apple is legally permitted to charge developers for purchases outside of the Apple ecosystem.
The District Court’s Original Injunction
The underlying dispute arises from Apple’s longstanding App Store rules prohibiting developers from directing users to alternative purchasing mechanisms. After a bench trial, Judge Gonzalez Rogers concluded that, while Epic failed to establish federal antitrust liability, Apple’s anti-steering provisions violated the UCL by preventing informed consumer choice. The court permanently enjoined Apple from prohibiting developers from including buttons, links, or other calls to action directing users to purchasing options outside Apple’s in-app purchase system. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that injunction in a prior appeal.
When the injunction took effect, Apple announced a revised compliance regime. Apple allowed developers to include external purchase links with two important caveats. First, Apple placed strict limits on the appearance, placement, and functionality of links directing users to make purchases outside of Apple’s in-app system. Second, Apple charged a hefty 27% commission any time users clicked one of these links to make an app-related purchase outside the App Store (a “linked-out” transaction).
Epic argued that Apple’s new rules preserved the same economic and practical barriers that the injunction was meant to eliminate. The high commission made linked-out transactions far less lucrative for developers, undermining their incentives to direct users to external payment flows. Epic asked the District Court to enforce its original injunction by enjoining Apple’s new framework, including the 27% commission.
After extensive evidentiary hearings, Judge Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple’s new rules violated the original injunction, held Apple in civil contempt, and imposed a series of remedial restrictions. Among other things, the Court barred Apple from charging any commission or fee on linked-out transactions and prohibited Apple from imposing most of its link-related conditions.
Affirmance of the Contempt Finding
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the contempt finding in full, holding that clear and convincing evidence supported Judge Gonzalez Rogers’s conclusion that Apple violated both the letter and the spirit of the injunction. The panel emphasized that courts are not required to accept hyper-literal compliance strategies that undermine the relief ordered. The Circuit also held that Judge Gonzalez Rogers properly considered evidence of Apple’s bad faith.
The panel agreed that Apple’s 27% commission was prohibitive in effect, noting that Apple’s documents revealed the commission was designed to make external purchasing economically irrational. The panel also agreed that Apple’s extensive restrictions on link design contravened the injunction, both directly and indirectly.
The Circuit rejected Apple’s attempt to vacate the underlying injunction based on intervening authority. Crucially for antitrust cases, the Circuit reaffirmed its recent holding in In re Google Play Store Antitrust Litig., 147 F.4th 917 (9th Cir. 2025) that Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025) does not limit a district judge’s power to grant permanent injunctive relief remedying violations of antitrust or unfair competition laws.
Limits on the Remedial Order
Although the Circuit affirmed the contempt finding, this was not a complete win for Epic. The Circuit reversed the remedial order in part, focusing on the provision that permanently barred Apple from charging any commission or fee on linked-out purchases. The panel made clear that neither the text nor the spirit of the injunction prohibits commissions outright. Instead, the injunction bars commissions that are prohibitive in effect—fees that functionally prevent developers from offering alternative purchasing mechanisms. By eliminating any avenue for Apple to propose a reasonable, non-prohibitive commission, the Ninth Circuit found that the remedial order crossed the line from coercive relief to punitive sanction.
The Ninth Circuit therefore remanded for the district court to determine what a non-prohibitive commission might be, providing important guideposts. Apple can charge a commission based on “the costs that are genuinely and reasonably necessary for its coordination of external links for linked-out purchases, but no more.” Necessary costs include “some compensation for the use of [Apple’s] intellectual property that is directly used in permitting Epic and others to consummate linked-out purchases,” but not much, since that IP is already used to facilitate in-app purchases. Necessary costs do not include “security and privacy features,” which Apple had previously cited as justification for its 27% commission. Apple and Epic can negotiate an appropriate fee, which must be approved by Judge Gonzalez Rogers before Apple can start charging developers. Based on the guidance from the Circuit, it appears that Apple may only charge a nominal fee for linked-out transactions.
Looking Forward: Implications for Developers
For developers, the decision provides meaningful clarity about the boundaries of Apple’s permissible conduct. The Circuit made clear that Apple may not impose commissions that significantly disincentivize consumers from making linked-out purchases, nor may it rely on design, placement, or messaging restrictions that effectively nullify developers’ ability to steer users. At the same time, the decision confirms that Apple is not categorically barred from charging any fee at all, although it appears that anything more than a nominal fee for linked-out purchases would violate the injunction. Apple may also continue to enforce certain content standards and ensure that external purchase options are not made more prominent than Apple’s own.
Developers should keep a close eye on the proceedings after remand to ensure that any fee the parties agree to does not undermine the viability of linked-out purchases—not just for Epic, but for all developers seeking to compete in the market for app-based transactions.
