Apple is challenging a federal court order that bars it from collecting commissions on in-app purchases made outside its App Store. The company filed a new appeal Monday in the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the injunction issued in April by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers goes far beyond the scope of the original 2021 ruling in its dispute with Epic Games.
The new injunction followed a finding of civil contempt, where Judge Rogers concluded that Apple had undermined an earlier order allowing developers to direct users to alternative payment methods. The updated ruling not only reinforced those rights but also stripped Apple of the ability to charge any fee on external purchases. Apple now claims that decision imposes punitive terms unrelated to the legal issues at the heart of the case.
Apple: New Ruling Overreaches and Violates Law
In its latest filing, Apple argues that the district court exceeded its authority. The company says the prohibition on commissions lacks legal basis under California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL) and amounts to an unconstitutional taking.
“The district court’s new prohibition against any commission on sales facilitated by Apple’s own platform has no basis in the original injunction,” Apple’s lawyers wrote. “It violates the UCL and amounts to a punishment. But civil contempt may not be used to punish.”
The company also defended its 27 percent commission on purchases made through external links. Even if that rate is considered excessive, Apple insists the court cannot justify a blanket ban on all commissions. “There is a vast gulf between finding Apple’s 27% commission too high and declaring Apple may no longer charge any commission at all,” the brief states.
Request for New Judge Signals Escalation
According to Law360 via (9to5mac), Apple is asking the Ninth Circuit to vacate the new injunction, reverse the contempt finding, and remove the five new restrictions on how developers present external payment links. These include rules around button design, placement of links, and required disclosures.
The company also wants the case reassigned to a new judge if it returns to the district court. Apple argues Judge Rogers has expressed views that raise doubts about impartiality. “Both circumstances are present here,” Apple said, citing legal standards that allow for reassignment when a judge’s prior findings may affect future rulings or undermine public confidence in fairness.
In a statement shared with Law360, Apple reiterated its concerns:
“Apple has spent decades earning users’ trust in the security, privacy, and innovative technology that the App Store provides, and we’re deeply concerned that this injunction now prevents Apple from continuing to protect our users in important ways.”
Epic Games declined to comment on the new appeal.
The case now returns to the Ninth Circuit, where judges must decide whether Apple’s challenge warrants a rollback of court-imposed rules that could reshape the App Store’s business model.