The court docket order that required Apple to gather no charges from builders who hyperlink to purchases outdoors of the App Retailer is unconstitutional, Apple stated at present in a reply temporary directed at Epic Video games and filed with the Ninth Circuit Courtroom of Appeals. Apple argues that it has been stripped of its rights to be compensated for its mental property in a ruling that units a harmful precedent for all corporations.
Choose Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who has been overseeing the Apple vs. Epic Video games lawsuit, first ordered Apple in 2021 to let builders add in-app hyperlinks directing prospects to third-party buy choices on the internet. Apple did not need to implement the modifications till 2024, and when it did, Apple charged a 12 to 27 % charge for purchases made via hyperlinks in an app. Epic Video games went again to the decide and stated Apple was charging “unjustified charges” and ought to be held in contempt of court docket.
Gonzalez Rogers agreed with Epic and stated that Apple was in “willful violation” of the unique order. In April 2025, Apple was given a way more particular mandate to permit linking with no charges and no management over how hyperlinks are offered in an app, which was a win for Epic Video games and for different app builders sad with paying charges to hyperlink out to the net. Apple carried out the modifications, however appealed the ruling.
In response to Apple, the 12 to 27 % charge that it was charging and the foundations that it had carried out round hyperlink design complied with the unique order. The April ruling [PDF] forcing Apple to implement App Retailer modifications stated that Apple had not adopted the “spirit of the injunction” and had as a substitute used a “dubiously literal interpretation,” some extent that Epic emphasised in its personal submitting with the court docket. In response, Apple argues that it is a weak argument that led to the injunction being expanded past what’s permissible by regulation.
The brand new injunction imposes, in meticulous element, new design and formatting guidelines and dictates the messages that Apple could convey to its personal customers by itself platform. These necessities symbolize an improper growth and modification of the unique injunction—reasonably than an try to implement compliance with the unique injunction—and violate the First Modification by forcing Apple to convey messages it disagrees with. Epic doubles down on the district court docket’s emphasis on the “spirit” of the unique injunction and Apple’s supposed dangerous religion, however civil contempt activates whether or not a celebration has violated the precise phrases of an injunction—which Epic doesn’t meaningfully attempt to present
Apple argues that it ought to be capable to ask for compensation for its IP protected applied sciences, and that the court docket ought to have pressured compliance with the unique injunction as a substitute of rewriting the injunction with new phrases that prohibit Apple from gathering charges.
The district court docket’s sweeping new zero-commission rule additionally is just not tailor-made to Epic’s claimed hurt, improperly imposes a punitive sanction, and results an unconstitutional taking.
Ought to the Ninth Circuit Courtroom discover the up to date injunction lawful, Apple means that the current Trump v. Casa Supreme Courtroom ruling [PDF] must be thought of. The ruling stated courts wouldn’t have the authority to concern common injunctions which can be “broader than mandatory to offer full reduction” to the plaintiffs within the case. Epic Video games is the one plaintiff within the case, so Apple additionally argues that the injunction altering the App Retailer guidelines for all builders is simply too broad. Apple says that the injunction ought to be tailor-made to Epic and Epic’s pursuits alone.
Epic has by no means demonstrated how requiring Apple to allow all method of linked-out purchases from any developer—and prohibiting Apple from gathering any fee on such purchases—is important to treatment Epic’s full hurt, significantly for linked-out transactions that don’t contain Epic. Simply the other, Epic has lined up amici to explain how they want to steer on the again of Apple’s IP-protected applied sciences at zero value to themselves, and to not the Epic Video games Retailer.
… Requiring Apple to allow linked-out transactions to Spotify, Microsoft, or Amazon doesn’t profit Epic in any means and isn’t essential to treatment any hurt suffered by Epic.
Apple desires the brand new injunction vacated, and the unique injunction reconsidered to find out whether or not it’s too broad.
As of proper now, Apple is required to permit all builders within the U.S. to offer hyperlinks to exterior web sites with no restrictions on hyperlink design and no charges. If the appeals court docket guidelines in Apple’s favor, Apple may change its App Retailer guidelines once more to reimplement charges.