Apple is escalating its legal battle with Epic Games, arguing that a recent court ruling could cost the company substantial sums. A judge found Apple in contempt of court for violating a previous order related to its App Store policies, specifically concerning in-app purchases made through external links. This ruling forces Apple to allow developers to utilize links outside the app for payments, bypassing Apple’s commission. The impact is significant, potentially costing Apple hundreds of millions, if not billions, annually.
The judge’s decision broadened the scope of changes Apple must implement, including the prohibition of restricting developers’ choices regarding the language and placement of these external links. In response, Apple has filed an emergency motion to stay the order, seeking to pause these changes until the decision can be fully appealed. They maintain that the required alterations will result in significant financial losses.
Apple’s motion emphasizes that this is just the latest development in Epic Games’ ongoing attempt to reshape the App Store’s operating model. The company highlights a previous court order that estimated the cost of implementing similar changes at hundreds of millions to billions of dollars annually. If successful, Apple’s appeal would essentially reverse changes already underway and allow them to reinstate their commission on external payments.
Several developers, such as Amazon and Spotify, have already adapted their apps to utilize external payment links, circumventing Apple’s fees. Amazon’s Kindle app, for example, now directs users to the Amazon website for book purchases. Epic Games is also preparing to launch new software designed to simplify the process for developers wishing to integrate external payment links. Apple, however, counters that these changes are reducing consumer choice and harming their business.
Adding to the complexity of the situation, the judge issued a criminal referral, alleging that Apple misled the court and that a company vice president lied under oath about the timing and reasoning behind Apple’s decision to charge a 27% commission on external payments. While Apple’s latest filing doesn’t directly address these accusations of misleading the court, it does argue that the ruling was punitive in nature and that contempt sanctions should only be used to compel compliance, not to punish non-compliance. Apple CEO Tim Cook has publicly stated that the company will appeal the contempt ruling, confirming their intention to fight back against what they see as an unfair and costly decision.
