US Court Denies Apple's Request to Pause Ruling on App Store External Payment Fees
In a significant development stemming from years of legal challenges, a U.S. court has denied Apple's request for a stay on a crucial ruling. This decision means Apple must proceed with implementing changes to its App Store policies that will allow developers to direct users to external websites for payments without incurring Apple's commission.
The ruling at the heart of this matter originated from the protracted antitrust lawsuit filed by Epic Games against Apple. While the court largely sided with Apple on many points, it found Apple's anti-steering provisions—which prevented developers from informing users about alternative payment methods outside the App Store—to be anticompetitive. The resulting injunction, issued in 2021, required Apple to allow developers to include 'buttons or external links' in their apps that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms beyond Apple's in-app payment system.
Apple had sought a stay on this injunction, arguing that implementing the required changes would be complex, potentially harm users, and disrupt its business model while the appeals process continued. However, the court remained unconvinced.
In its filing, the court stated, “Apple ‘bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of [our] discretion.’” It concluded, “After reviewing the relevant factors, we are not persuaded that a stay is appropriate.” This denial underscores the court's view that Apple has not presented sufficient justification to delay compliance with the injunction.
The Epic Games Lawsuit and the Path to the Injunction
To fully understand the weight of this recent court denial, it's essential to revisit the origins of the dispute. Epic Games, the developer behind the popular game Fortnite, initiated the lawsuit in August 2020 after Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store. This removal occurred because Epic implemented its own direct payment system within the app, bypassing Apple's mandatory in-app purchase mechanism and its associated 30% commission.
Epic Games argued that Apple's App Store practices constituted an illegal monopoly, stifling competition and harming both developers and consumers. The core of their complaint centered on two main points:
- The requirement that apps distributed through the App Store must exclusively use Apple's in-app payment system for digital goods and services.
- The prohibition on developers communicating with users within the app about alternative, potentially cheaper, payment methods outside the App Store (anti-steering provisions).
The trial, which took place in 2021 before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, was a landmark event, putting Apple's tightly controlled ecosystem under intense scrutiny. While the court did not find Apple to be a monopolist under federal antitrust law (a major win for Apple), it did find that Apple violated California's unfair competition law through its anti-steering rules.
This led to the injunction issued in September 2021, which ordered Apple to cease prohibiting developers from including in their apps “buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchase.” The injunction was initially stayed pending appeals, allowing Apple to maintain its existing rules for several years.
Apple's Attempts at Compliance and Developer Pushback
Following the appeals process, which largely upheld the original injunction regarding anti-steering, Apple began making changes to its App Store rules in the U.S. to comply. However, these changes were met with criticism from developers and antitrust advocates.
In January 2024, Apple updated its guidelines to allow developers of certain apps (specifically those providing digital goods and services) to include a link to an external website for purchasing. However, Apple stated it would still charge a commission of 27% on transactions made through these external links within seven days of the user clicking the link. Furthermore, developers were required to request an entitlement to use this link, and users were presented with an interstitial screen warning them that they were leaving the App Store and that Apple was not responsible for transactions on external sites. Critics dubbed these interstitial warnings as 'scare screens', designed to discourage users from using external payment options.
Developers argued that the 27% commission on external transactions was still excessively high and undermined the purpose of the injunction, which was to allow them to bypass Apple's payment system and its fees. The requirement for an entitlement and the user warnings were also seen as unnecessary hurdles.
The April 2025 Ruling and Apple's Emergency Motion
The dissatisfaction with Apple's implementation led to further legal action. Epic Games returned to court, arguing that Apple's updated rules, particularly the 27% fee on external transactions and the 'scare screens,' did not constitute genuine compliance with the 2021 injunction.
In April 2025, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled in favor of Epic Games on this point. She found Apple to be in “willful violation” of the 2021 injunction. The judge clarified that the injunction required Apple to allow developers to direct users to external payment methods without imposing a fee on those transactions. The ruling explicitly stated that Apple could not charge a commission on sales made outside the App Store via these links and ordered Apple to remove the 'scare screens' and simplify the process for developers to implement external links.
This ruling was a significant blow to Apple's attempts to maintain revenue from transactions originating from its platform, even when processed externally. In response to this adverse ruling, Apple took two immediate steps:
- It filed an appeal against Judge Gonzalez Rogers' April 2025 decision.
- It filed an emergency motion seeking a stay on the ruling while the appeal process unfolded. Apple argued that implementing the changes required by the April ruling would cause irreparable harm and that it was likely to succeed on appeal.
The Denial of Stay: Immediate Impact
The recent decision by the U.S. court to deny Apple's request for a stay is the latest critical turn in this ongoing legal saga. By denying the stay, the court has effectively mandated that Apple must comply with the April 2025 ruling immediately, even as its appeal is pending. This means Apple must:
- Allow developers of digital goods and services apps to include external links for payment without charging a commission on transactions made via those links.
- Remove the mandatory interstitial warning screens that users previously saw when clicking an external payment link.
- Make it easier for developers to implement these external links.
For developers, this is a significant victory. It potentially allows them to bypass Apple's commission entirely for transactions initiated via external links, offering them greater control over their revenue and potentially enabling them to offer lower prices to consumers or reinvest more in their businesses. The removal of the 'scare screens' also makes it more likely that users will actually follow the external links.
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney was quick to react to the news, celebrating the court's decision. In a post on X, he stated, “Apple’s stay is denied by the 9th Circuit Court. The long national nightmare of the Apple tax is ended.” While the legal battle isn't entirely over due to Apple's appeal, Sweeney's reaction reflects the immediate practical impact of the stay denial.
Apple’s stay is denied by the 9th Circuit Court. The long national nightmare of the Apple tax is ended.
— Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic) June 4, 2025
May next week’s WWDC be the Apple-led celebration of freedom that developers and users have long deserved. pic.twitter.com/f0A3IAVKNC
Apple, on the other hand, expressed disappointment with the court's decision. An Apple spokesperson issued a statement saying, “We are disappointed with the decision not to stay the district court’s order, and we’ll continue to argue our case during the appeals process. As we’ve said before, we strongly disagree with the district court’s opinion. Our goal is to ensure the App Store remains an incredible opportunity for developers and a safe and trusted experience for our users.” This indicates Apple's commitment to pursuing its appeal and its belief that its App Store policies are necessary for security, privacy, and maintaining a viable ecosystem.
Developer Adoption and Industry Implications
Even before the formal denial of the stay, some large developers had begun preparing for or implementing changes based on the April ruling. Companies like Spotify and Amazon, which offer digital content and services, are among the first to leverage the ability to direct users to external payment options.
- Spotify, a long-time critic of Apple's App Store policies, has reportedly had an update approved that allows U.S. users to purchase audiobooks directly within the app, presumably by linking out to Spotify's website, bypassing Apple's commission.
- Amazon's Kindle app for iOS also added a 'Get Book' button, which likely directs users to the Amazon website to purchase e-books, another example of leveraging external links to avoid the App Store fee.
These early adoptions by major players signal a potential shift in how digital content is sold and purchased within iOS apps in the U.S. While the impact on smaller developers remains to be seen, the ability to avoid the 30% (or even 27%) commission could significantly improve their profitability, especially for those operating on thin margins.
The ruling and the denial of the stay also have broader implications for the digital economy and the ongoing global debate about the power of platform owners like Apple and Google. Regulatory bodies and courts in various jurisdictions, including the European Union with its Digital Markets Act (DMA), are pushing for similar changes to open up mobile ecosystems and reduce the control and fees charged by gatekeepers.
Financial Context and Future Outlook
Apple has consistently argued that the App Store commission is necessary to fund the platform's development, maintenance, security, and marketing, which ultimately benefits developers. The company recently published a report highlighting the economic activity generated by the App Store.
According to Apple's report, the App Store ecosystem facilitated $1.3 trillion in billings and sales in 2024. Crucially, Apple stated that over 90% of these billings and sales did not generate any commission revenue for the company. This figure includes physical goods and services, in-app advertising, and other categories where Apple does not take a cut. However, the commission on digital goods and services, while a smaller percentage of the total economic activity, represents a significant and highly profitable revenue stream for Apple.
The denial of the stay comes just ahead of Apple's annual Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC). While WWDC is primarily focused on showcasing new software features and tools for developers, the legal and economic landscape surrounding the App Store is an unavoidable backdrop. Developers attending or watching the conference will undoubtedly be interested in how Apple addresses, or doesn't address, the implications of this ruling and the broader regulatory environment.
The immediate future involves Apple complying with the April 2025 ruling while simultaneously pursuing its appeal. The appeals process could take many months, and the outcome is not guaranteed. However, for the time being, developers in the U.S. selling digital goods and services have a court-ordered right to direct users to external payment options without paying a commission to Apple.
This case highlights the complex tension between platform control and developer freedom. Apple maintains that its curated ecosystem and payment system are crucial for security, privacy, and a consistent user experience, justifying its fees. Developers and regulators argue that Apple's dominant position gives it excessive power, allowing it to extract rents and stifle innovation. The court's denial of the stay is a win for the latter perspective, at least temporarily, forcing Apple to open up a key aspect of its lucrative App Store model in the United States.
The long-term impact will depend on the final outcome of Apple's appeal and how developers and consumers adapt to the new payment options. Regardless, this ruling marks a significant moment in the ongoing global effort to reshape the rules governing digital marketplaces.