Apple loses bid to delay app store policy changes

A federal appeals court in San Francisco has rejected Apple’s attempt to pause a court order requiring it to let App Store developers link to external payment sites for in-app purchases.

This ruling enables developers to bypass Apple’s commission fees.

The ruling stems from a legal dispute with Epic Games, which accused Apple of anticompetitive behavior under California law.

The court found Apple failed to justify a delay and reinforced that the company cannot collect commissions or restrict external links.

As a result, Apple is prohibited from charging commissions on external transactions and from controlling how developers link to their own payment platforms.

Apple said it was disappointed by the decision, while Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney praised it on social media.

The case began in 2021 when a judge ruled partly in Apple’s favor but still ordered policy changes, later upheld by the Supreme Court and followed by further legal actions.

🔗 Source: Bloomberg

🧠 Food for thought

1️⃣ Antitrust history shows pattern of delayed but consequential tech regulation

The Apple-Epic battle follows a historical pattern of landmark antitrust cases that initially faced resistance but ultimately reshaped tech markets.

The Microsoft antitrust case (1998-2001) similarly centered on a dominant platform allegedly using its position to stifle competition, resulting in Microsoft sharing APIs with developers, which has parallels to today’s app store disputes1.

Earlier cases against IBM and AT&T in the 1970s demonstrate how antitrust proceedings frequently stretch over years, with companies often maintaining their dominant positions during litigation while regulators struggle to keep pace with rapidly evolving technology2.

These historical cases reveal that even when tech giants ultimately prevail on some claims, the litigation process itself often forces significant business model adjustments that create openings for competitors and new innovation.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ referral of Apple to prosecutors for potential criminal contempt highlights the escalating stakes in tech antitrust enforcement compared to previous eras.