In a decision that once again puts under the spotlights App Store business modelThe Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has upheld the rebuke of Apple for disobeying a previous court order, but at the same time opens the door for the company to continue charging some commission for transactions made outside its official store, as long as that percentage is less than the 27% it had initially set.
What exactly has the US Court of Appeals decided?
The 54-page Ninth Circuit ruling confirms that Apple deliberately violated a order of Judge Yvonne Gonzalez RogersThat order, issued after the 2021 trial, required the company to allow developers to redirect users to alternative payment methods on the web, where prices are often cheaper than in-app purchases on the App Store.
However, the appeals court considers that the lower court's response was excessive. completely ban commissions for those external payments. According to the three-judge panel, The court exceeded its discretionary power by vetoing all remuneration. For Apple. The court's message is clear: the iPhone maker can continue to charge something for the use of its intellectual property, but not at the level it sought to set.
In practice, this means that Judge Gonzalez Rogers will have to rethink the conditions and decide What type of commission can Apple charge developers? when these lead users to complete the purchase outside the App Store. It's not about a blank check, but about finding a middle ground that recognizes the value of the company's technology without stifling competition.
The court emphasizes that Apple has the right to receive compensation for the use of its tools and systems. especially when such technologies allow Epic and other studios close purchases through external linksBut that right does not justify such a high percentage as 27%, which, according to the judges, is not aligned with the spirit of the original 2021 order or with California law applicable to the case.
Apple has not yet offered any public comment on this latest legal setback. The company had already unsuccessfully attempted to challenge the previous reprimand, and now faces a new procedural phase in which The rules of the game for purchases outside the App Store could be redefined., with possible indirect effects on other markets, including the European market.
A long-standing conflict: Epic, Fortnite, and App Store commissions
The origin of the conflict dates back more than five years, when Epic Games accused Apple of illegally blocking competition within the App StoreThe publisher of Fortnite complained that the commission system —between 15% and 30% on most in-app purchases— and the obligation to use Apple's payment system limited the freedom of developers and impacted users' wallets.
Following a trial held in 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled mostly in favor of Apple with regard to federal antitrust legislationThe court determined that, under federal antitrust law, the App Store's policies did not reach the threshold of illegal monopoly. However, it did find a violation of California antitrust law, a key distinction that paved the way for concrete changes.
Under that state regulation, the court ordered Apple to would allow developers to inform and direct consumers towards cheaper online payment optionsThis decision partially broke the lock on the App Store's closed ecosystem. It was later upheld by both the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court, further solidifying its status as a landmark ruling in the regulatory battle over digital platforms.
Apple's response was to enable the inclusion of links that would take users to external pages to complete the payment, but at the same time the company introduced a new 27% commission on revenue generated outside the App StoreFor Epic and other critical developers, this move was seen as an attempt to empty the court order of its meaning: formally, alternative mechanisms were allowed, but in practice the cost remained very similar to that of purchases made within the store itself.
Epic then returned to court, accusing Apple of violating the 2021 ruling. In addition to the percentage, it alleged new restrictions on the design and placement of external linkswhich, in their view, hampered the user experience and discouraged the use of alternative payment methods. The recent ruling by the Ninth Circuit largely supports this view, finding that Apple's response did not conform to either the spirit or the letter of the original order.
The App Store, a multi-billion dollar business under scrutiny
The legal battle with Epic takes place within a context where the App Store has become one of Apple's major sources of recurring revenueAlthough the company does not break down exactly how much revenue it generates from its app store, it has indicated that in 2024 it facilitated more than $400.000 billion in sales for developers through its ecosystem.
Data from the mobile analytics firm Appfigures indicates that, in the United States alone, Apple is estimated to have generated around $10.000 billion in 2024 thanks to the App StoreThis volume gives an idea of ​​why the company so strongly defends its fee model and the impact that any regulatory or judicial change can have on its accounts.
In Europe, where Apple is also under intense scrutiny, these figures do not go unnoticed. EU authorities and national regulators are watching closely. How litigation evolves in the United StatesThis is because many of the discussions—commissions, interoperability, freedom of choice of payment method—overlap with the demands coming from Brussels regarding digital markets.
The commissions of between 15% and 30% that the company applies to most in-app purchases have been generating friction with developers worldwide for years, from large studios to small app creators. For many of them, Margins are reduced to the limit when platform fees are combined with other costs. (marketing, servers, user support), something that ends up impacting the final price that consumers pay.
In this scenario, the Ninth Circuit's ruling can be interpreted as This is a sign that major platforms will need to further refine their commission policies. if they want to avoid continuous clashes with regulators and with their own developer ecosystem, both in the United States and in Europe.
Potential effects for developers and users in Spain and Europe
Although the U.S. Court of Appeals' decision is based on U.S. and California law, its impact extends far beyond those borders. In practice, It sets a precedent regarding the balance between platform control and the economic freedom of developers., a debate that is very much alive in the European Union with regulations such as the Digital Markets Act (DMA).
For Spanish and European developers, moves like this reinforce the perception that The commission and restriction model in app stores is no longer considered untouchable.Although the ruling has no direct effect on the EU, it does provide arguments and examples that can be taken into account by European regulators and courts when assessing similar cases.
Users may also benefit in the medium term if these decisions lead to greater competition in payment methods and more flexible pricing structuresThe possibility of buying digital content through the web, with offers or discounts compared to traditional in-app purchases, is one of the points that generates the most interest, especially in price-sensitive markets like Spain.
At the same time, the fact that the US court recognizes Apple's right to charge a fee for the use of its intellectual property It opens a nuanced debate about the true value of the infrastructure offered by major platforms.It's not just about a store, but about security, distribution, updating, and visibility systems that, in many cases, are essential for an app to reach the end user.
For European authorities, the Epic-Apple case is yet another reference point when defining What are the reasonable limits between rewarding technological investment and avoiding situations of abuse of dominant position?That is precisely the line that the EU is trying to draw with its new rules for so-called "gatekeepers," a group that includes Apple itself.
A rivalry that will continue to generate discussion
The Ninth Circuit's decision doesn't end the conflict, but it does redefine the playing field. Now the ball is back in Judge Gonzalez Rogers' district court, who will have to... determine what commission level is acceptable for purchases made outside the App StoreThat final percentage will be key to assessing the extent to which Epic's victory is symbolic or also economic.
For Apple, the challenge lies in adjusting its policies without giving the impression that it is giving up too much ground. while maintaining the confidence of developers and investorsThis case adds to other pressures the company faces in markets such as Europe, where it is required to allow alternative stores and different payment systems within its platforms.
Epic, for its part, gained a significant boost to its confrontational strategy, as an appeals court upheld Apple's contempt of court ruling and ordered a review of the 27% commission. This victory aligns with his speech in favor of a more open app ecosystemHowever, the company will also have to adapt to a scenario in which the platform will maintain some control and ability to collect payments.
Beyond the direct protagonists, the case once again brings to the forefront the tensions that arise when A critical digital infrastructure is controlled by a single actorThe line separating a closed and secure ecosystem from an overly restrictive environment is becoming increasingly thin, and courts, both in the United States and in Europe, are being forced to intervene more frequently.
What happens in this litigation in the coming months will be closely followed in Spain and the rest of Europe, not only by tech giants, but also by development studios, small app creators, and users who, ultimately, are the ones who pay for subscriptions and in-app purchases. Following this new decision by the US Court of Appeals, Everything suggests that the commission model of the major app stores will continue to evolve., forced by the courts and regulators, towards somewhat more flexible and, potentially, more favorable formulas for competition.
