Apple has been referred for possible criminal contempt by a US judge who found it wilfully defied a court order to open its App Store to greater competition, escalating its long-running legal battle with Epic Games and raising the stakes for one of the world’s most powerful tech firms.
Dramatic
The ruling marks a dramatic twist in the long-running legal saga between Apple and Fortnite developer Epic Games and could actually lead to some serious legal consequences for one of the world’s most valuable companies.
Deliberate Defiance?
The latest judgement, delivered last week by US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, accuses Apple of “insubordination” and “egregious misconduct” in its handling of a 2021 injunction that required it to allow app developers to direct users to external payment systems.
That original injunction followed a partial victory by Epic Games, which sued Apple over its tight control of in-app purchases and up-to-30 per cent commission fees. While the judge rejected broader monopoly claims at the time, she ruled that Apple could no longer prevent developers from linking users to alternative ways to pay, a move that would cut into Apple’s multi-billion dollar revenue stream from the App Store.
However, according to last week’s court filing, it seems that Apple effectively ignored that order. For example, not only did it introduce new barriers, including a controversial 27 per cent commission on off-app purchases, but it also implemented what the judge called “scare screens” designed to discourage users from straying outside Apple’s walled garden.
Internal Pushback and False Testimony Allegation
In perhaps the most damning section of her ruling, Judge Gonzalez Rogers said Apple’s internal documents showed senior leaders knowingly avoided compliance.
She noted that Apple CEO Tim Cook had rejected advice from App Store architect Phil Schiller to follow the injunction, instead siding with CFO Luca Maestri, who advocated keeping revenue protections in place. The judge wrote bluntly: “Cook chose poorly.”
The ruling also accused Apple’s vice-president of finance, Alex Roman, of lying under oath during the proceedings. “He outright lied,” she wrote, further reinforcing the seriousness of the contempt findings.
Decision Time
The matter has now been referred to the US Attorney for the Northern District of California, who will decide whether to pursue criminal contempt proceedings, a rare and serious step that could lead to fines for the company and potentially even jail time for individuals if charges are brought and proven.
Epic Offers a Truce
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney welcomed the decision as a major milestone in the fight against what he calls Apple’s “junk fees”. He announced that Fortnite would return to the US iOS App Store this week, three years after being pulled amid the legal fallout.
Sweeney also made a surprising peace offer via social media, suggesting Epic would end all related litigation if Apple agreed to apply the new, frictionless payment rules globally. “Game over for the Apple Tax,” he wrote, referencing similar regulatory moves already under way in Europe under the Digital Markets Act.
Apple Pushes Back and Plans Appeal
In a brief statement, Apple said it “strongly disagrees” with the ruling and will appeal to the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals. The company is expected to seek a pause on the order while the appeal plays out, although analysts say the appeal may be difficult to win given the weight of evidence already compiled.
Apple also maintains that its updated policies are in line with the injunction. However, the judge ruled that the company’s so-called compliance measures were designed not to enable competition, but to preserve its existing revenue model through subtle deterrents.
What This Could Mean for Apple (and Developers)
The implications of all this could be wide-reaching and, if federal prosecutors do pursue a criminal contempt case, it would mark a highly unusual escalation in a corporate antitrust battle. It could also embolden regulators in other countries, including the UK and EU, where scrutiny of Big Tech practices is intensifying.
For developers, the ruling could finally force Apple to relax some of the strict controls it has long imposed over in-app payments, which is a development that many have lobbied for in recent years. For example, Apple’s 15-30 per cent cut has been criticised as excessive, particularly by smaller app makers who say it squeezes margins and limits innovation.
Meanwhile, investors will be watching closely. While Apple’s stock has remained resilient so far, any criminal findings or further disruption to its lucrative App Store ecosystem could cast a longer-term shadow over one of its most profitable divisions.
What Does This Mean For Your Business?
The decision to refer Apple for possible criminal contempt doesn’t mean charges are guaranteed, but it’s a real escalation that could have serious ripple effects. The US Department of Justice will now decide whether to pursue a prosecution, weighing the judge’s findings against internal documents and court testimony that paint a picture of calculated resistance. Even if no charges follow, the ruling sets the precedent that major tech firms can no longer really expect leniency if they appear to sidestep the spirit of antitrust decisions.
For Apple, the stakes are not only legal. The reputational damage from being publicly rebuked by a federal judge, and having a senior executive accused of lying under oath, may affect how regulators, developers, and consumers perceive the company. In an era of heightened scrutiny, where Europe’s Digital Markets Act and the UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill aim to rein in tech monopolies, this case may offer lawmakers fresh justification for tougher rules.
Developers worldwide are also, no doubt, watching closely, particularly those who have long criticised Apple’s App Store fees and restrictions. If the outcome leads to genuine, enforceable change, e.g. lower commissions or real freedom to use alternative payment systems, it could shift the balance of power. For UK businesses building or operating apps, any move towards greater flexibility would be welcome, especially in sectors where margins are tight and growth depends on reaching users without excessive overheads.
Broadly speaking, this saga reinforces how global platforms are being forced to justify longstanding business models under legal pressure. The Epic v. Apple dispute may have started in the US, but its consequences are global, and for regulators, developers and digital firms in the UK and beyond, it’s another sign that the era of unchecked platform dominance may finally be nearing its end.