Apple has submitted a reply brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals as part of its appeal against a district court order that prevents the company from collecting fees from developers when users visit external purchase links. In its filing, Apple contends the injunction is a bridge too far that violates judicial power, violates the company’s rights and creates an unhealthy precedent for how courts can remake digital marketplaces.
The legal history of the dispute
The squabble originates with Apple and Epic Games’ litigation that is before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers on the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Originally, Judge Gonzalez Rogers had ordered changes to the App Store to enable links out to web-based purchase systems. Apple would later add a linking option but would charge fees on purchases made thru those links, leading Epic to ask for a contempt trial.
The district court held that Apple had violated that opposition, and broadened the relief: It mandated that Apple permit free-standing links, and not restrict how the links appear. That broader injunction is now the one against with Apple is appealing to the Ninth Circuit, which the company is asking the appellate court to either narrow, or to vacate.
Apple’s claims: overreach, speech and property arguments
In its declaration, Apple argues that the modified injunction went beyond a mere attempt to enforce the original order — it fully rewrote it. The company has argued that the court’s detailed rules about link design and mandated messaging mark an improper foray into telling Apple what it can say on its own digital platform, an emerge that implicates First Amendment concerns.
Apple also characterizes the zero-fee requirement as an unconstitutional taking of intellectual property. The company contends that is a de facto taking requiring compensation under the Due Process clause because its app-distribution platform and the associated tech happen to be the company’s property which consumers don’t want to be charged for services.
Apple urges the Ninth Circuit to take account of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Trump v. Casa, which constrained a court’s ability to issue broad, nationwide injunctions. Apple has argued that the relief should be specifically written for Epic Games and not benefit all other developers throughout the greater App Store ecosystem.
Developers & Major Platform Players
But the company involves real-world implications by noting that the injunction would apply to transactions from services like Spotify, Microsoft and Amazon — companies Apple said have nothing to do with Epic’s claimed harms. Apple contends that imposing the same zero fee rules on all developers across the country is more than is necessary to address Epic’s complaint⟩
Developers and industry groups have been watching closely because the result could fundamentally change how app marketplaces are able to make money off third-party sales. Should the appeals court maintain the broader injunction, other platform operators could be subject to similar constraints on how they assess fees for access and services.
What to watch for in the appeals process
The Ninth Circuit will now consider Apple’s appeal and Epic’s defense before deciding whether to modify, vacate or affirm the district court’s order. If the appellate court agrees with Apple, the company may be able to re-impose fees and restrictions on how links are presented. If the court upholds the injunction, Apple’s existing no-fee linking guidelines are likely to apply to all U.S. developers.
Legal observers say a definitive appellate ruling could end up leading to further review by the U.S. Supreme Court – particularly considering the case’s constitutional and commercial stakes. For the moment, the App Store will stay subject to the district court’s no-fee mandate as the appeal goes forward.
Wider Impact on Platform Regulation
The case is at the intersection of antitrust, free-speech and property-law disputes that regulators and courts are confronting more often as the digital economy expands. Rulings here could shape future battles over how much power platform owners have and what role the courts should play in fashioning remedies when economic rules of the marketplace are challenged.
As the Ninth Circuit reviews the briefs and the arguments, everyone from consumer advocates to big tech will watch it closely for clues about the permissible boundaries of judicial remedies that impact giant online platforms.
