Judge slams Apple for violating App Store antitrust injunction (2025)

Apple could face criminal contempt charges if the Justice Department decides to act.

OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge ruled Wednesday that Apple willfully violated the terms of a 2021 injunction meant to curb anticompetitive conduct with respect to in-app and out-of-app purchases on its app store.

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Rogers Gonzalez said she will refer the matter to the U.S. Attorney's Office for possible criminal contempt charges.

“Apple’s continued attempts to interfere with competition will not be tolerated,” the Barack Obama appointee wrote.

The court order that Apple violated requires the tech giant to allow greater competition for app downloads and payment methods in its App Store on iPhones and other devices. The injunction took effect in January after an antitrust trial on claims brought by Epic Games, developers of the hit game Fortnite.

In the suit, Epic Games accused Apple of hindering competition for app downloads and charging inflated commission prices for in-app purchases.

Apple mostly won the suit against Epic Games, but Gonzalez Rogers ruled in 2021 that Apple violated California's competition law and told the iPhone maker to allow app developers to have more freedom in giving users access to other payment options. Epic Games lost its appeal to the Ninth Circuit and the Supreme Court declined to get involved, leading to the injunction going into effect in January 2024.

During evidentiary hearingslast year, Epic Games told the court Apple was “blatantly” violating the court’s order, including by imposing new fees on app developers when Apple customers complete an app purchase outside the App Store.

Epic Games also said Apple began displaying messages on its products warning customers of the potential danger of using outside links to purchase items in order to deter non-Apple payments.

At the end of those evidentiary hearings, Gonzalez Rogers demanded months of Apple’s documents to determine if it violated her injunction.

“After two sets of evidentiary hearings, the truth emerged. Apple, despite knowing its obligations thereunder, thwarted the Injunction’s goals, and continued its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream. Remarkably, Apple believed that this court would not see through its obvious cover-up,” Gonzalez Rogers wrote.

Gonzalez Rogers wrote that Apple knew it was ignoring her injunction and at every turn chose the option that would prioritize its own revenue streams.

“To hide the truth, vice president of finance Alex Roman outright lied under oath. Internally, Phillip Schiller had advocated that Apple comply with the Injunction, but Tim Cook ignored Schiller and instead allowed chief financial officer Luca Maestri and his finance team to convince him otherwise. Cook chose poorly,” she wrote. “The real evidence, detailed herein, more than meets the clear and convincing standard to find a violation. The court refers the matter to the United States attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are appropriate.”

Schiller is an Apple Fellow — a high-level title bestowed upon individuals who have made exceptional technical or leadership contributions to the company.

“This is an injunction, not a negotiation. There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order. Time is of the essence. The court will not tolerate further delays. As previously ordered, Apple will not impede competition. The Court enjoins Apple from implementing its new anticompetitive acts to avoid compliance with the Injunction,” Gonzalez Rogers wrote. “Effective immediately Apple will no longer impede developers’ ability to communicate with users nor will they levy or impose a new commission on off-app purchases.”

Gonzalez Rogers wrote in her referral of contempt that “the court takes no position on whether a criminal prosecution is or is not warranted. The decision is entirely that of the United States attorney. Under federal law, the executive branch may decide whether Apple should be deprived of the fruits of its violation, in addition to any penalty geared to deter future misconduct.”

Neither Apple nor Epic immediately responded to requests for comment.