Hi there,

Epic argued that Apple’s App Store rules limited consumer choice and overcharged developers. Apple said its model protected users and funded a safe ecosystem. Courts required Apple to allow links to outside payments, then faulted Apple’s first attempt at compliance. Regulators in Europe forced even broader changes, opening new paths for app stores and payments.

Executive Summary

Epic launched a legal and policy campaign to break Apple’s tight control of iOS app distribution and payments. A U.S. court ordered Apple to allow “anti-steering” links so developers could direct users to external purchase options. In 2024 the Supreme Court left that order in place, making the rule durable.

Apple implemented a link option but tried to charge up to 27% on external transactions. In April 2025 the trial judge ruled Apple had not complied and barred Apple from taking commissions on purchases outside the App Store while the order stands. Fortnite then returned to the U.S. App Store amid continuing appeals.

Background

Epic’s dispute began in 2020 when it added its own payment in Fortnite and Apple removed the app. A 2021 ruling rejected most of Epic’s antitrust claims but required Apple to loosen anti-steering limits. Apple’s first compliance plan allowed a single link out, subject to strict conditions and fees.

In Europe, the Digital Markets Act required Apple to open iOS to alternative distribution and payment options. In March 2024 Apple terminated Epic’s EU developer account, then reinstated it after pressure from the European Commission. Epic announced plans for the Epic Games Store and Fortnite on iOS in the EU.

The Business Challenge

1. Control vs openness

Apple wanted to preserve the security, privacy, and revenue of a single controlled store. Epic wanted more distribution paths and lower take rates. The conflict set platform safety against market access.

2. Price and margin pressure

Developers questioned Apple’s 15–30% fees. Apple argued the fees funded the platform and support. Epic said the fees were excessive at scale.

3. Legal uncertainty

Both sides faced multi-year litigation with mixed outcomes. Apple won most antitrust claims but lost on anti-steering. Epic needed clear, enforced rules to change behavior.

4. Global fragmentation

The U.S. case moved through appeals while the EU DMA created different obligations. Policies risked becoming region specific. Global developers needed consistent rules.

5. User experience risk

External payments and stores add choices but also friction. Scare screens, verification steps, and mixed policies can confuse buyers. Conversion and trust were at stake.

The strategic moves

1. Epic: force policy change through courts

File a case that targeted steering and distribution. Accept near-term app store risk to reshape long-term rules. Use public messaging to rally developers.

2. Apple: comply narrowly, defend the model

Offer link-outs with strict conditions and proposed commissions on external purchases. Maintain security narratives and fee logic. Preserve as much store economics as possible.

3. Epic: build alternatives in Europe

Leverage the DMA to launch the Epic Games Store and restore Fortnite in the EU. Show a path where competition can exist on iOS. Use EU momentum to influence U.S. outcomes.

4. Apple: appeal and iterate

Appeal adverse rulings while adjusting policies. Seek stays and reinterpretations. Keep developer terms unified until courts force broader changes.

5. Both: negotiate in public

Use press, filings, and direct posts to shape perception. Frame changes as either necessary safety or overdue freedom. Influence regulators and other large developers.

Execution

1. Anti-steering mechanics

Apple added a single link with disclosure rules and review gates. Epic argued the rules were too restrictive and the outside commission illegal. The court agreed that compliance fell short and tightened the order.

2. External fee plan

Apple set a 12–27% commission on web purchases attributed to an in-app link. Epic moved to block the fee as a violation of the injunction. The dispute became the center of the 2025 contempt finding.

3. EU developer access

Apple terminated Epic’s EU developer account, halting store plans. After Commission involvement, Apple reinstated access. Epic resumed its EU launch roadmap.

4. Return of Fortnite (U.S.)

Following the April 2025 ruling, Epic pushed for App Store reinstatement. Apple confirmed in court that the submission issues were resolved. Fortnite reappeared in the U.S. App Store while appeals proceeded.

5. Appeal posture

Apple sought relief from the Ninth Circuit on the broadened order and contempt. Reporting indicated Apple asked to reverse the bar on external commissions. The appeals keep the policy environment fluid.

Results and Impact

1. Policy precedent

U.S. courts established durable anti-steering rights for developers. Apple’s initial compliance was rejected as too restrictive. Future models must allow real external choice.

2. Economic shift

If commissions on outside payments are barred, some App Store margin erodes. Developers can test lower prices on the web. Apple seeks other ways to protect revenue.

3. Regional divergence

The EU DMA pushes farther than U.S. rulings by requiring alternative stores and payments. Developers can compare outcomes across regions. Cross-border firms face different compliance builds.

4. Signaling to platforms

Other gatekeepers watch the outcome and adjust playbooks. Policies around steering links, default fees, and “scare screens” will evolve. Litigation risk rises when compliance feels cosmetic.

5. Consumer path to choice

Users will see clearer links, more payment options, and possibly alternative stores in some regions. Conversion may dip at first, then improve as flows get simpler. Trust and education become part of product design.

Lessons for Business Leaders

1. Compliance must be substantive

A minimal fix that preserves old economics can trigger sanctions. Design changes that meet both the letter and the spirit of orders. Treat enforcement as a product requirement, not a PR line.

2. Regulation can change the core model

When the bottleneck is distribution, policy can reshape margins fast. Build scenarios where parts of your take rate vanish. Diversify value so customers still choose you.

3. Offer safe choice, not false choice

If you allow alternatives, make them clear and workable. Avoid “scare screens” and friction that appear punitive. Transparent options build long-term trust.

4. Compete on experience, not lock-in

If your rival can exist on your platform, win on speed, security, and UX. Reduce steps to buy. Bundle real benefits that are hard to copy.

5. Plan for region-specific architectures

Global rules will not converge quickly. Modularize payments, disclosure, and store logic by market. Keep a single brand promise while meeting local law.