Apple could be in serious trouble over Fortnite rejection

Macworld

It would be inaccurate to claim that either Apple or Epic Games has decisively won their acrimonious and long-running legal dispute over the use of external payment links in iPhone apps: courts have sided with both companies at various times and in various aspects of the case. But Epic seems to be getting the better of things, after a judge angrily ruled at the end of April that Apple must allow such links and called its previous response “insubordination.”

That sounds conclusive, and is a potential financial hammer blow: Apple makes a great deal of money from transactions in iOS apps, and its cut may be about to shrink. But the question remains of what now happens to Fortnite, the game that triggered the dispute back in 2020. Epic thinks it should be allowed back on the App Store, because it was banned for something that must now be allowed, but Apple thinks it was within its rights to ban the game under the rules at the time and won’t even consider a reversal until all litigation is over.

Whether Apple is wise to behave in this way is debatable. Refusing to allow Fortnite to return hurts iPhone owners as much as it hurts Epic, and it feels like petty retaliation. But whether it’s legally justifiable is a different matter—one which Epic decided to test by asking the judge in the case to force Apple’s hand and arguing that the company is in contempt of that April ruling. And the judge has now responded… rather ominously.

“The Court is in receipt of Epic Games, Inc.’s Motion to Enforce the Injunction,” writes Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, in a document shared by Epic CEO Tim Sweeney. “The Court thus issues this Order to Show Cause as to why the motion should not be granted. Briefing […] shall include the legal authority upon which Apple contends that it can ignore this Court’s order having not received a stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal even though its request was filed twelve days ago on May 7, 2025.”

Not the most promising start for Apple, which is instructed to explain why it hasn’t complied with the order despite receiving no encouragement from the appeals court. But it gets worse:

“Obviously, Apple is fully capable of resolving this issue without further briefing or a hearing. However, if the parties do not file a joint notice that this issue is resolved, and this Court’s intervention is required, the Apple official who is personally responsible for ensuring compliance shall personally appear at the hearing hereby set for Tuesday, May 27.”

It’s not clear who the “official who is personally responsible for ensuring compliance” would be. MacRumors speculates that it could be an executive as high-ranking as Phil Schiller, who has responsibility for the App Store, but Apple may try to get away with someone with a lower profile. But it does seem that individual penalties, rather than or as well as more easily disregarded corporate fines, could be in the cards if the company pushes its luck much further. And it may be worth pointing out that, while obviously an extreme option in this case, contempt of court can be punished with jail time.

That doesn’t mean that Apple would necessarily lose that May 27 hearing. One of the remedies given in 2021’s original judgment (see page 179, section G) by the same judge was “a declaration that (i) Apple’s termination of the DPLA [Developer Product Licensing Agreement] and the related agreements between Epic Games and Apple was valid, lawful, and enforceable, and (ii) Apple has the contractual right to terminate its DPLA with any or all of Epic Games’ wholly owned subsidiaries, affiliates, and/or other entities under Epic Games’ control at any time and at Apple’s sole discretion.” None of the rulings since then suggest a change in the judge’s position on whether Apple is allowed to boot companies from the App Store as and when it pleases.

The problem is that Apple is specifically not allowed to “prohibit” the use of external payment links. It can reject apps, or ban developer accounts, at its own discretion. But if it rejects an app or bans a dev for no reason other than its use of such links, does that amount to a de facto prohibition? Again, that’s debatable.

If Apple can come up with some other reason for Fortnite’s exclusion, it might be okay–and it could be helpful that the company has, in compliance with the ruling, approved updates to other high-profile apps such as Spotify and Patreon which add the links. But if it can’t, the penalties could be severe. The stakes just got a lot higher.