Judge Pressures Apple to Approve Fortnite or Face Court Scrutiny

The long-running legal saga between tech titan Apple and game developer Epic Games has taken another dramatic turn. At the heart of the conflict is Apple's App Store policies and, specifically, the ability for developers to direct users to alternative payment methods outside of Apple's ecosystem. While Epic Games secured a partial victory in its antitrust lawsuit, forcing Apple to allow developers to include links to external payment options, the implementation of this ruling has been anything but smooth. Now, a federal judge is stepping in with a stern message for Apple: approve Fortnite's return to the U.S. App Store or prepare to explain your legal basis for refusal in court.

In a recent filing, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who presided over the initial bench trial between the two companies, confirmed receipt of Epic Games' latest motion. Epic is pushing the court to compel Apple to approve Fortnite for distribution on the App Store, arguing that Apple is defying the court's standing injunction.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers' response was notably sharp, reflecting apparent frustration with Apple's actions. She directly challenged Apple, demanding that the company "show the court the legal authority upon which Apple contends that it can ignore this Court’s order." The judge made it clear that if Apple does not resolve the issue promptly, the company will need to return to court to provide its explanation.

"Apple is fully capable of resolving this issue without further briefing or a hearing," Judge Gonzalez Rogers stated, underscoring her belief that Apple has the means to comply with the court's directive without further legal wrangling. Adding significant weight to her demand, she also requested that Apple name the specific company official responsible for ensuring compliance with the court’s decision. This request is particularly telling, as it suggests the judge is considering holding individuals accountable for non-compliance, potentially through contempt of court proceedings.

The Genesis of the Conflict: Apple vs. Epic Lawsuit

To fully appreciate the significance of this latest development, it's crucial to understand the context of the Apple vs. Epic lawsuit. Epic Games initiated the legal battle in August 2020 after Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store. This removal occurred because Epic implemented its own direct payment system within the Fortnite app, bypassing Apple's mandatory 30% commission on in-app purchases. Epic argued that Apple's App Store policies constituted an illegal monopoly and anticompetitive behavior.

The ensuing trial was a high-profile clash over the structure and control of digital marketplaces. Epic sought to dismantle Apple's tightly controlled ecosystem, arguing for the right to offer alternative app stores and payment systems on iOS devices. Apple defended its model, asserting that its policies were necessary for security, privacy, and maintaining a high-quality user experience, and that the 30% commission was a standard industry practice.

In September 2021, Judge Gonzalez Rogers delivered her initial ruling. While she found that Apple was not a monopolist in the broader mobile gaming market as Epic had alleged, she did rule that Apple's anti-steering provisions – the rules preventing developers from directing users to alternative payment methods outside the app – were anticompetitive under California law. She issued a nationwide injunction prohibiting Apple from enforcing these rules, requiring Apple to allow developers to include "buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchase."

Implementing the Injunction: A Rocky Road

Following the initial ruling and subsequent appeals, the injunction regarding external links was upheld and set to take effect. Apple's response to implementing this change was met with criticism from developers, including Epic. Apple updated its App Store policies for the U.S., allowing developers to apply for an "entitlement" to link to external payment options. However, the terms included a requirement for developers to still pay Apple a commission, albeit a reduced one (27% instead of 30%), on transactions made within seven days of a user clicking the external link. Furthermore, Apple mandated the use of "scare screens" – prominent warnings informing users they were leaving the App Store ecosystem and that Apple would not be responsible for transactions made externally.

Developers argued that the commission requirement on external payments and the mandatory warning screens undermined the intent of the injunction and made using alternative payment methods unattractive or confusing for users. This led to further legal challenges and motions from Epic and others, arguing that Apple was not truly complying with the spirit of the court's order.

In a significant development preceding the current filing, Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled in May 2025 that Apple was in "willful violation" of the court's injunction regarding anticompetitive pricing and commissions related to these external links. This ruling was seen as a major victory for developers and seemed to pave the way for apps like Fortnite to return to the App Store with the ability to offer alternative payment options under more favorable terms.

Fortnite's Attempted Return and Apple's Delay

Armed with this latest ruling affirming Apple's non-compliance and seemingly clearing the path, Epic Games resubmitted Fortnite to the U.S. App Store. For Epic and its players, this was a crucial step towards restoring access to the popular game on iOS devices, which had been unavailable since the initial ban in 2020. The resubmission was a direct test of Apple's willingness to comply with the court's directives following the "willful violation" finding.

However, Apple did not immediately approve or deny the submission. Instead, according to Epic, Apple informed the game maker that it would not take action on the submission until after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on Apple's pending request for a partial stay of the new injunction. Apple's position was that the legal proceedings surrounding its appeal of the injunction needed to fully play out before it was obligated to reinstate Fortnite under the new rules.

Epic Games viewed this delay as another tactic by Apple to circumvent the court's order. From Epic's perspective, the injunction was in effect, and Apple was required to comply unless and until a higher court granted a stay. Apple's refusal to process the Fortnite submission based on a *pending* request for a stay was, in Epic's view, a continuation of the non-compliance that the judge had already identified as a "willful violation."

In response to Apple's inaction, Epic Games filed a motion to compel the court to enforce the injunction. This motion directly asked Judge Gonzalez Rogers to order Apple to approve Fortnite's submission, arguing that Apple's delay was unjustified and contrary to the court's previous orders.

The Judge's Impatient Response

Judge Gonzalez Rogers' latest filing is a direct consequence of Epic's motion to compel. Her language indicates a clear lack of patience with Apple's legal maneuvers. By demanding Apple provide the "legal authority" for ignoring her order, she is essentially asking Apple to demonstrate why it believes it is not currently obligated to approve the app. This puts the burden squarely on Apple to justify its delay based on existing legal principles, rather than simply asserting that its appeal process allows it to pause compliance.

The judge's suggestion that Apple will need to return to court if the issue is not addressed reinforces the seriousness of the situation. Court proceedings are costly and time-consuming, and being compelled to appear before a judge who has already found you in "willful violation" is not a favorable position for Apple.

Perhaps the most significant aspect of the judge's filing is the demand for the name of the Apple official responsible for compliance. This moves the potential consequences beyond corporate liability to individual accountability. In legal contexts, identifying specific individuals responsible for complying with court orders is often a prelude to considering sanctions for contempt of court. Contempt charges can carry significant penalties, including fines and, in extreme cases, even imprisonment, though the latter is highly unlikely in a corporate compliance matter like this. The threat, however, is a powerful tool to compel immediate action.

This isn't the first time Judge Gonzalez Rogers has expressed frustration with Apple's post-injunction behavior. Her earlier ruling, where she "skewered" Apple for attempting to route around the court's orders and accused the company of lying under oath, set a precedent for her willingness to call out Apple's tactics directly. The current filing appears to be a continuation of this firm stance, indicating that the judge is not willing to allow Apple to indefinitely delay compliance through procedural means.

Legal Interpretations and Potential Outcomes

At the core of the dispute over the delay is the legal interpretation of the injunction and the effect of a pending appeal and request for a stay. Generally, an injunction is effective immediately unless a stay is granted by the issuing court or a higher court. Apple's argument seems to be that the ongoing appeal process, particularly the request for a stay from the Ninth Circuit, somehow justifies pausing compliance with the injunction as it applies to new submissions like Fortnite.

However, Judge Gonzalez Rogers' filing suggests she does not accept this interpretation. Her demand for legal authority implies that she believes Apple is currently obligated to comply with the injunction as it stands, regardless of the pending appeal or stay request, unless a stay is actually granted. A pending request is not the same as a granted stay.

What happens next depends on Apple's response. Apple has a few options:

1. **Comply and Approve Fortnite:** Apple could choose to approve Fortnite's submission to the U.S. App Store, thereby resolving the immediate issue and satisfying the judge's demand. This would likely involve allowing Epic to implement its external payment links under the terms dictated by the court's recent "willful violation" ruling.
2. **Provide Legal Justification:** Apple could refuse to approve Fortnite and instead file a legal response explaining to Judge Gonzalez Rogers the specific legal basis upon which it believes it is entitled to delay action pending the Ninth Circuit's decision on the stay. This would lead to further briefing and potentially a hearing, as the judge indicated.
3. **Risk Contempt:** If Apple neither approves the app nor provides a satisfactory legal justification, it risks being found in contempt of court. This could lead to significant financial penalties and further damage to Apple's reputation in the ongoing legal and regulatory battles it faces worldwide.

Given the judge's pointed language and the demand for a specific official's name, the pressure on Apple to comply is significant. While Apple is known for its aggressive legal defense of its App Store policies, ignoring a direct order from a federal judge is a risky strategy.

Broader Implications for the App Ecosystem

The outcome of this specific skirmish over Fortnite's return has implications far beyond just Apple and Epic Games. The Apple vs. Epic lawsuit has become a focal point for the global debate over app store regulation, developer rights, and competition in digital markets. The U.S. injunction requiring Apple to allow external links has already prompted changes to Apple's App Store policies, which have been utilized by other major developers.

For example, following the policy updates, companies like Spotify, Amazon Kindle, and Patreon quickly rolled out updates to their iOS apps in the U.S. to take advantage of the new functionality, allowing users to sign up or purchase content via external websites, potentially bypassing Apple's commission entirely (though the 27% fee on linked transactions remains a point of contention).

The judge's firm stance against Apple's delay tactics could embolden other developers who feel Apple is not fully complying with the spirit of the ruling or is creating unnecessary hurdles for implementing alternative payment options. It also sends a signal to regulators in other jurisdictions who are considering or implementing similar rules (like the Digital Markets Act in the European Union) that courts are willing to enforce pro-competition rulings vigorously.

If Apple is forced to approve Fortnite's return under the terms of the injunction, it would be a significant win for Epic Games and a symbolic moment in the fight for more open mobile ecosystems. It would demonstrate that court orders, even those facing appeal, must be taken seriously and complied with promptly.

Conclusion: Awaiting Apple's Move

The ball is now firmly in Apple's court. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has issued a clear ultimatum: approve Fortnite's submission or provide a compelling legal reason for the delay in court. Her demand for the name of the responsible official highlights the potential for serious consequences if Apple is perceived as continuing to defy the court's authority.

This latest development underscores the ongoing tension between Apple's desire to maintain control over its App Store and the increasing legal and regulatory pressure to open its ecosystem to greater competition. The resolution of this specific issue will be closely watched by developers, regulators, and legal experts worldwide, as it will provide further insight into the enforceability of court-ordered changes in the dynamic and highly profitable world of mobile app marketplaces. Whether Apple chooses compliance or confrontation will determine the immediate next steps in this landmark legal battle.