Apple appeals May App Store ruling

This article may contain affiliate links. Learn more on our Partner Program page.

Make Apfelpatient a preferred source One click – and you'll see us more often on Google

Apple is entering the next phase of legal proceedings. Although the company has already made changes to the App Store as ordered by the court, it is now officially appealing the ruling. The background to this is the years-long dispute with Epic Games over the App Store's rules. Apple is now responding to a decision dated May 1, 2025, that contained new guidelines for the US App Store design.

If you use or develop apps, this issue directly affects you. It involves fundamental questions: Who controls how payments are processed in apps? Are providers free to point to cheaper alternatives? And how much influence can a company like Apple exert over its platform? The conflict with Epic Games demonstrates how closely economic interests and legal requirements are intertwined – and that Apple is prepared to take legal action against unpopular decisions.

Apple implements court order – but simultaneously appeals

On May 1, 2025, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple must immediately implement certain changes to the U.S. App Store. She found that Apple had not complied with previous obligations from the lawsuit with Epic Games. A request for a stay was denied. Apple was not only ordered to implement the measures, but was also made clear that the court would leave no room for delay. Apple subsequently implemented the requested changes. However, the company simultaneously filed an appeal against the ruling. As first reported by The Verge, the appeal was received by the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The appeal letter is brief and mainly contains a reference to the case—case number 4:20-cv-05640-YGR—and the names of the attorneys.

What the matter is about

At its core, the ruling concerns the so-called anti-steering rules in the App Store. These had previously prevented developers from directing or redirecting users to alternative payment methods outside the App Store. The lawsuit focused precisely on this point: Apple allegedly disadvantaged competitors with this rule. Epic Games sued Apple in 2020 because it prohibited developers from directing users to external payment methods. In the subsequent trial, Apple won almost all points – with one exception: The court deemed the anti-steering rule anticompetitive and ordered Apple to stop this practice in 2021.

Dispute over implementation: Did Apple really follow the ruling?

Apple later claimed that it had implemented the ruling. However, Epic Games argued that its implementation undermined the very purpose of the order. Instead of creating transparency, Epic argued that Apple had imposed additional hurdles on the new regulations, negating the effect of the ruling. The judge followed this argument. In her May 1, 2025, decision, she wrote that Apple had created "new anticompetitive barriers" and that it was a "gross miscalculation" to think the court would tolerate this approach (via The Verge).

What Apple specifically had to change

Apple had to lift restrictions that previously prohibited developers from offering alternative payment methods. This necessitated changes to the App Store that allow direct links to external payment options. Companies like Spotify have already responded by adapting their apps accordingly. Users can now pay directly without having to use Apple's in-app payment system.

Apple remains silent on appeal, proceedings uncertain

The appeal Apple has now filed concerns only the ruling regarding the App Store rules—not the separate proceedings for possible contempt of court. At this time, there is neither a timeline for the appeal nor a statement from the court. Apple itself has not publicly commented on the appeal. Despite the appeal, the court's requirements must still be complied with. However, Apple apparently hopes that the appeal will overturn at least parts of the ruling. Whether this will succeed is unclear. (Image: Shutterstock / HakanGider)

Was this article helpful?

YesNo