Apple says Epic lawsuit should not reshape App Store rules for all developers
Apple argued in an 84-page filing on Friday with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that the court should narrow the scope of application of the anti-steering ruling in the Epic Games case. The company's central argument: a court decision regarding a single developer such as Epic Games should not require a policy change for all 200,000-plus active developers on the App Store.
The background: in 2021 Epic Games filed a lawsuit alleging that Apple's restriction on payment alternatives on the App Store breached US antitrust law. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled in Apple's favour but said that the company's 'anti-steering' provision, which forbade developers from advertising payment options outside the App Store, was unlawful under California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). In November 2024, Judge Rogers found that Apple had been 'wilfully non-compliant' with this ruling and initiated contempt proceedings.
Apple's new appeal asks the court to read the scope narrowly. 'Judge Rogers's decision rests on a particular contract dispute between Apple and Epic Games; if that dispute becomes a policy regulation governing the general rules of the App Store, it means that antitrust law has been conflated with contract law,' Apple's counsel write.
Apple's chief lawyer Mark Perry told TechCrunch in a written statement that 'we believe the court will understand that the App Store's success depends on global consistency of application. Disrupting uniform rules for all developers will damage the user experience.' Perry added that Apple is 'ready to go to the Supreme Court if necessary'.
Epic Games reacted sharply to the filing. Epic chief executive Tim Sweeney said in a post on X that 'Apple acted in bad faith not for a single developer but for all developers; narrowing the scope means that law is being politically negotiated'. Sweeney said Epic's counter-filing would be lodged with the court by 12 June.
The developer community is watching the case closely for how it will reshape the ecosystem. Spotify general counsel Eve Konstan told the BBC that 'narrowing Apple's anti-steering rules could dramatically alter competition conditions in music streaming and gaming. Spotify supports the full removal of the rule.'
A matching statement also represents the position of developer associations and digital-market regulators. Coalition for App Fairness spokesperson Brandon Kressin filed an amicus curiae brief with the court. The European Commission Digital Markets Act (DMA) team is also aware of the case; EU competition commissioner Mario Draghi said in a press statement that 'the EU DMA framework already prohibits the App Store's anti-steering provision; Apple's resistance is invalid in Europe'.
Apple's US resistance, distinct from the EU environment, is creating a complex dual-governance environment for developers. Applications in the EU permit links suggesting that developers pay outside the App Store, while applications in the US cannot access this feature until the court ruling has settled. This represents an additional compliance issue for operating international app stores.
Financially, the App Store is the largest line item in Apple's services group, generating 27 billion dollars in annual revenue. Full generalisation of the anti-steering ruling for the developer community, according to JPMorgan analysts, could lead to a 3.4 billion dollar annual net revenue loss. Apple shares rose 1.2 per cent after the filing was disclosed; the market partially reflected the view that the company will succeed in the judicial process.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals will examine the appeal after a hearing on 12 July 2026. A ruling is expected in the autumn of this year; the final outcome will either confirm Judge Rogers's 2025 decision or narrow its scope. Apple's option to go to the Supreme Court if necessary makes it likely the case will continue into the autumn of 2026. This article is not investment advice.