Business & Economics
US Appeals Court Keeps Epic Injunction, Sends Apple’s ‘Link-Out’ Fee to Lower Court
On 12 Dec 2025 the 9th Circuit upheld Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ contempt finding against Apple but struck her blanket ban on external-payment commissions, ordering the district court to set a “reasonable” fee instead.
Focusing Facts
- The three-judge panel’s 54-page opinion affirmed Apple’s violation of the 2021 injunction yet ruled the 27 % fee Apple imposed on off-App-Store purchases must be reassessed.
- Until the lower court sets a new rate, Apple remains barred from charging any commission on external transactions, exposing a revenue stream that topped an estimated $24 billion in App Store fees in FY 2025.
- Epic CEO Tim Sweeney publicly vowed that Epic will accept only fixed-cost review fees and “zero percent” revenue share, signalling further litigation.
Context
Modern platform fights echo past infrastructural monopolies: the 1956 Bell System consent decree forced AT&T to open its long-distance lines to competing equipment, and the 1998–2001 U.S. v. Microsoft case compelled Windows to allow rival browsers—both were tipping points when a dominant gatekeeper’s tolls met judicial limits. Today’s ruling sits at the intersection of two long arcs: (1) the century-old antitrust debate over vertically integrated distribution networks, and (2) the steady global push—from Korea’s 2021 in-app payment law to the EU’s 2024 Digital Markets Act—toward unbundling digital storefronts. While the decision stops short of declaring Apple a monopolist, it chips away at the 30 % “tax” model that has defined mobile commerce since 2008; if a single U.S. district judge ultimately sets a single-digit fee, copy-paste jurisprudence abroad could compress margins across every major platform. Over a 100-year horizon the moment may mark the gradual shift from proprietor-controlled ecosystems to utility-style regulation of digital rails, akin to railroads’ rate-setting after the 1906 Hepburn Act—incremental, not revolutionary, but a clear directional signal that the era of unregulated app-store tollbooths is closing.
Perspectives
Developer-oriented tech outlets
e.g., WebProNews, Cryptopolitan, News.az — They frame the appeals decision as a meaningful win for Epic Games that curbs Apple’s "junk fees" and pushes the App Store toward more open, developer-friendly terms. By echoing Tim Sweeney’s language and spotlighting words like “sham” and “fresh loss,” they accentuate Apple’s defeats while giving little weight to the court’s acknowledgment that Apple can still seek a commission.
Business & investor-focused news sites
e.g., EconoTimes, Devdiscourse, Digit — They stress that Apple scored a partial victory because the court affirmed its right to charge a "reasonable" commission on external purchases, portraying the ruling as a pragmatic adjustment rather than a wholesale loss. By centering Apple’s retained revenue streams and describing the outcome as a “partial win,” they underplay Epic’s success in keeping the core injunction intact and mirror the interests of readers worried about Apple’s profitability.