Apple has filed a reply brief with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals challenging a district court order that bars the company from collecting fees when developers link users to external purchase options. In its filing, Apple argues the injunction oversteps judicial authority, infringes on the company’s rights, and sets a risky precedent for how courts can reshape digital marketplaces.
Legal history behind the dispute
The dispute traces back to litigation between Apple and Epic Games, overseen by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Judge Gonzalez Rogers originally ordered changes to the App Store that would permit links out to web-based purchase systems. Apple later implemented a linking option but applied fees on purchases routed through those links, prompting Epic to seek contempt proceedings.
The district court found Apple in violation and expanded the relief: it required Apple to allow external links with no fees and prohibited restrictions on link presentation. That broader injunction is now the subject of Apple’s appeal to the Ninth Circuit, where the company asks the appellate court to narrow or vacate the order.
Apple’s claims: overreach, speech and property arguments
In its brief, Apple contends the updated injunction did more than enforce compliance with the original order—it rewrote it. The company says the court’s detailed rules about link design and required messaging improperly dictate what Apple can say on its own platform, raising First Amendment concerns.
Apple also frames the zero-fee mandate as an unconstitutional taking of intellectual property. The company argues that its app distribution platform and related technologies are proprietary assets for which it is entitled to compensation, and that forbidding fees amounts to a judicially imposed seizure of that property without fair process.
Apple asks the Ninth Circuit to consider the Supreme Court’s decision in Trump v. Casa, which limited courts’ authority to issue broad, universal injunctions. Apple says the relief should be tailored to Epic Games alone rather than extended to all developers across the App Store ecosystem.
Impact on developers and major platform players
The company highlights real-world implications by noting that the injunction applies to transactions from services such as Spotify, Microsoft, and Amazon—entities Apple says have no connection to Epic’s claimed harms. Apple argues that forcing the same zero-fee rules on every developer nationwide exceeds what is necessary to resolve Epic’s dispute.
Developers and industry groups have been watching closely because the outcome could reshape how app marketplaces monetize third-party sales. If the appeals court upholds the broader injunction, other platform operators could face similar limits on how they charge for access and services.
What to expect next in the appeals process
The Ninth Circuit will review Apple’s challenge and Epic’s defenses before deciding whether to modify, vacate, or affirm the district court’s order. If the appellate court sides with Apple, the company could reinstate fees and tighter control over link presentation. If the court affirms the injunction, Apple’s current no-fee linking rules would likely remain in place for all U.S. developers.
Legal observers say a decisive appellate ruling could ultimately invite further review by the U.S. Supreme Court, especially given the case’s constitutional and commercial implications. For now, the App Store remains under the district court’s no-fee requirements while the appeal proceeds.
Broader consequences for platform regulation
The case sits at the intersection of antitrust, free-speech and property-law issues that regulators and courts increasingly confront in the digital economy. Outcomes here may influence future disputes over how much control platform owners can exert and what remedies courts may craft when marketplace rules are contested.
As the Ninth Circuit considers the briefs and arguments, stakeholders from consumer groups to major technology firms will be monitoring closely for signals about the permissible scope of judicial remedies affecting large-scale online platforms.
