U.S. Court Ends Apple’s Monopolistic App Store Payment Practices

SAN FRANCISCO – In a landmark decision that could redefine how mobile apps handle payments, a U.S. federal court has ruled that Apple must allow developers to direct users to external websites for purchases – a major blow to the company’s long-standing control over App Store transactions.

The ruling stems from ongoing litigation in the Epic Games v. Apple antitrust case and enforces an earlier injunction that Apple was found to have violated. Effective immediately, apps on the U.S. App Store can include links or buttons that take users to a separate website to complete payments without using Apple’s in-app purchase system or paying its standard commission fees.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in contempt of court for continuing to restrict external payment methods, despite a previous order. The decision not only opens the door for developers to collect payments directly but also prohibits Apple from discouraging such actions through restrictive design choices or warning screens.

Apple’s request to delay enforcement was denied, and the company has since revised its App Store Review Guidelines to comply – at least temporarily – while appealing the decision.

Industry Shake-Up: What the Ruling Means

The decision effectively dismantles one of Apple’s core App Store policies – the rule requiring that all digital purchases and subscriptions made within iOS apps go through Apple’s payment system, from which the company takes up to a 30% commission.

With this ruling, developers now have the right to:

• Embed external payment links or buttons within their apps.
• Process payments through their own websites or third-party platforms.
• Offer potentially lower prices outside the App Store due to the removal of Apple’s commission.
• Avoid Apple’s “out-of-app” surcharge and any related compliance fees.

Apple is still permitted to require a neutral notice when users leave the app to complete a purchase, but it may no longer impose “scare screens” or language that deters external transactions.

Apple’s Response and Legal Exposure

Apple’s initial reaction was to seek a stay, claiming that sudden implementation could disrupt the App Store ecosystem and reduce consumer safety. The court denied that request, noting Apple had ample time to comply with prior orders.

The ruling also referred Apple to federal prosecutors for possible criminal contempt, citing evidence that the company internally instructed teams to preserve revenue streams despite court restrictions.

While Apple has begun implementing guideline changes for U.S. developers, it continues to pursue appeals. Outside the United States, Apple maintains its current policies, citing separate legal jurisdictions.

Developer and Market Impact

The new ruling immediately alters the economics of mobile app development:

• Developers can handle their own payment systems, giving them greater flexibility but also greater responsibility for processing security, fraud prevention, and tax compliance.
• Users may see more pricing transparency and, potentially, lower costs as app makers pass along savings from avoiding Apple’s commission.
• Competitors, including Google, may face renewed scrutiny over similar in-app billing restrictions on Android devices.

Analysts believe this shift could reduce Apple’s Services division revenue, which relies heavily on App Store commissions and subscription cuts from digital content platforms.

Background: Epic Games v. Apple

The legal battle began in 2020 when Epic Games added a direct payment option to Fortnite, bypassing Apple’s 30% fee. Apple promptly removed Fortnite from the App Store, leading to Epic’s lawsuit alleging monopolistic practices.

In 2021, the court ruled partially in Epic’s favor, ordering Apple to stop preventing developers from linking to outside payment options. However, Apple implemented compliance in a narrow way that critics said effectively nullified the order by imposing fees and interface deterrents.

This 2025 contempt finding restores and strengthens that earlier order – ending Apple’s ability to impose any fee or friction for off-app payments.

Key Detail & Information

Key Detail	Information
Court Decision	U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
Date of Ruling	April 30, 2025
Judge	Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers
Core Finding	Apple violated prior injunction; must permit external payment links
Scope	Applies to U.S. App Store apps
Key Restriction Lifted	Apps may link to external websites for purchases
Commission Impact	Apple cannot charge fees or commissions for external transactions
Compliance Deadline	Immediate (no stay granted)
Criminal Referral	Apple referred to DOJ for potential contempt review

---

Timeline of Events

Date	Event
Aug. 2020	Epic Games introduces direct payment in Fortnite, violating App Store terms.
Aug. 2020	Apple removes Fortnite; Epic sues Apple for antitrust violations.
Sept. 2021	Court rules Apple must allow links to external payment options.
2022–2024	Apple introduces limited compliance; developers argue it still violates the ruling.
April 2025	Judge Rogers finds Apple in contempt of court for defying prior order.
May 2025	Apple updates App Store guidelines to allow external links but files appeal.
June 2025	Appeal for stay denied; ruling stands for U.S. developers.
October 2025	Developers begin incorporating direct payment options into U.S. apps.

---

Q&A: Understanding the Decision

Why is this ruling significant?
It’s the first major enforcement action ensuring that Apple cannot monopolize digital payment channels within iOS apps. It could reshape the balance of power between app developers and platform operators.

Does this apply worldwide?
No. The ruling currently applies only to the U.S. App Store. Other regions, such as the EU and Japan, have their own pending legislation or cases on app store competition.

Will Apple still earn money from apps?
Yes – Apple still collects commissions on purchases made within its in-app payment system. However, developers now have a legal alternative that avoids Apple’s cut altogether.

How will this affect users?
Users may begin seeing links or buttons inside certain apps that lead to an external website for payment. Prices may be lower there since developers can bypass Apple’s 30% commission.

What happens next?
Apple’s appeal continues, but enforcement remains active. The Department of Justice’s review could also expand into a broader antitrust case against Apple’s App Store business practices.