A federal appeals court has delivered a sharp rebuke to Apple over how it handled links to outside payment systems in iPhone apps, upholding a finding that the company willfully defied a judge’s orders while softening part of the financial penalty. The ruling keeps the door open for developers to steer users to alternative payment options, even as Apple still gets a shot at charging a court-approved commission on purchases that start in apps and finish elsewhere.
The three-judge Ninth Circuit panel issued a unanimous, 54-page opinion that largely affirmed U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ April contempt order but found that her blanket ban on Apple collecting any commission went too far, according to Local 10. The appeals court told Gonzalez Rogers to reopen the case and craft a narrower remedy instead of a categorical prohibition on fees, leaving room for a ceiling or formula for what it called a “reasonable” commission.
Reuters reports that the panel took a dim view of Apple’s post-verdict tactics, including a new 27% charge on purchases made through external links, tight restrictions on how those links could look, and attention-grabbing warnings that discouraged users from clicking away. The judges concluded those moves undercut the spirit of the original injunction. While the court declined to bless any specific percentage, it laid out factors for the district court to use when resetting the rules.
What the judges said about compliance
The panel agreed that Apple had “claimed to comply” with the injunction while rolling out policies that made outside payment paths either unappealing or clunky, as detailed by The Verge. At the same time, the Ninth Circuit said Gonzalez Rogers went too far by responding with an outright commission ban and instead urged her to peg any fee to Apple’s real costs of supporting external links and related transactions. The opinion also made clear that Apple cannot bury or handicap third-party payment options compared with its own buttons and purchase flows.
Why developers and users should care
After losing earlier rounds, Apple set commissions in roughly the 12% to 27% range for purchases completed off the App Store, a setup that many developers said made little financial sense, according to TechCrunch. Once third-party processing fees were added on top, there was not much left to entice major app makers to push customers off iOS in-app purchases. As AP News notes, Apple’s services division, which includes its cut of in-app commerce, is a multibillion-dollar revenue engine, so even small tweaks to commissions carry serious financial weight.
Next steps in the courtroom
From here, the case heads back to Judge Gonzalez Rogers, who now has to apply the Ninth Circuit’s guidance and hold further proceedings to set a commission cap or formula, Reuters reports. Her earlier contempt order also included a referral to federal prosecutors over allegations of misleading testimony, and any criminal review would unfold on a separate track. Both Apple and Epic remain free to press for additional relief on narrower issues as the fee question gets reworked, so the legal skirmishing is not over yet.
Legal implications
The ruling sends a pointed message about how appellate courts expect trial judges to police powerful platforms: remedies have to be tough enough to stop companies from side-stepping orders, but not so broad that they overshoot the specific violations. The eventual definition of a “reasonable” fee will be crucial. It could clear the way for truly workable off-App Store payment options or lock in a new, court-approved slice that Apple can reliably claim. Lawyers and developers alike will be parsing the Ninth Circuit’s roadmap closely as the next round of hearings plays out in the Northern District of California.
