In an exceptionally sharp rebuke, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an 80-page ruling blasting Apple for defying court orders previously set in the landmark antitrust case brought by Epic Games, makers of Fortnite. Although Apple had largely won that initial lawsuit, with the court finding the tech giant was not an outright monopolist, Judge Rogers determined that Apple’s practices around payment handling in the App Store were indeed anticompetitive.
Specifically, Rogers had earlier ordered Apple to allow app developers the choice to direct their customers to alternative payment methods, bypassing Apple’s in-house system. This would have allowed developers to escape Apple’s well-known 30% commission on in-app purchases. In response, Apple imposed highly restrictive conditions, including trimming its commission merely from 30% down to 27%, and displayed prominent “scare screens” warning users against following external payment links—thereby effectively discouraging their use.
According to the judge, Apple’s behavior showed a flagrant disregard for both the spirit and the letter of the injunction. Judge Rogers condemned Apple in no uncertain terms, accusing the company’s senior executives, including CEO Tim Cook, of consciously deciding to follow advice from its finance team—particularly CFO Luca Maestri—that sought to protect revenue streams rather than comply fully with the court’s directive. The judge also called out Alex Roman, Vice President of Finance at Apple, directly accusing him of lying under oath about when decisions relating to these external payment commissions had been made.
The ruling reveals previously internal company conflicts over the matter: according to the decision, Apple executive Phillip Schiller had argued for genuine compliance, but Cook rejected Schiller’s counsel, siding instead with the more aggressive financial recommendations from Maestri and his team. This choice, the judge noted pointedly, may even prompt criminal contempt proceedings, citing Apple’s intentional delay of the process and, ultimately, their intentional undermining of judicial authority.
The ruling is filled with cutting remarks about Apple’s conduct. Judge Rogers wrote explicitly: “This is an injunction, not a negotiation,” underscoring her impatience with Apple’s deliberate attempts to reinterpret and evade court mandates. The court noted that Apple had purposefully structured a compliance program—called internally “Project Michigan”—that would suppress app developers’ usage of alternative payment methods by adding unnecessary layers of difficulty. Among these barriers were not just fees but an extended reach of commissions beyond reasonable scope and intimidating messaging presented to users who attempted to buy outside Apple’s ecosystem.
Citing Apple’s procedural maneuvers—specifically its abuse of attorney-client privilege designations to mask its decision-making process from the court—the judge sanctioned the company heavily. Apple has been directed to cover costs for the special masters appointed to review evidence, as well as pay Epic Games’ attorneys’ fees directly tied to these tactics.
The court unequivocally held Apple in civil contempt, labeling its non-compliance deliberate and far from trivial. Rogers characterized Apple’s actions as a brazen attempt to maintain a proven, court-identified anticompetitive revenue stream at any cost. She dismissed Apple’s purported explanations as entirely lacking credibility, concluding the actions constituted clear acts of “economic non-viability” designed specifically to disadvantage competitors.
In response to the blistering judgment, Apple released a succinct statement: “We strongly disagree with the decision. We will comply with the court’s order and we will appeal.”
This ruling marks a critical juncture in the ongoing legal battle surrounding Apple’s App Store policies, emphasizing judicial intolerance for companies attempting to skirt compliance through strategic misinterpretation of mandates. Apple now faces stronger scrutiny and mandatory adherence to previously ordered remedies meant to ensure fair competition on its lucrative iOS ecosystem.
