Apple App Store vs Epic Games (2020-2025): the multi-year antitrust fight over the 30% in-app-purchase commission

The August 2020 Fortnite removal and lawsuit

On August 13, 2020 Epic Games introduced a direct-payment system in the iOS version of Fortnite. The change let players buy V-Bucks (Fortnite's in-game currency) at a discount by paying Epic directly rather than going through Apple's in-app-purchase system. The change explicitly violated Apple App Store policies that required all in-app purchases to use Apple's payment system, which collected a 30 percent commission. Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store the same day. Google removed Fortnite from the Play Store shortly after (Epic filed a parallel lawsuit against Google).

Epic had clearly planned the move in advance. Within hours of Fortnite removal, Epic filed an antitrust lawsuit against Apple in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. Epic also launched a #FreeFortnite marketing campaign explicitly framing the dispute as Apple's 30 percent commission being an anti-competitive monopoly tax. The lawsuit and the public-relations campaign were coordinated; the goal was to force structural change to the App Store rather than just to get Fortnite reinstated.

The May 2021 trial and September 2021 ruling

The case went to a bench trial in May 2021 before Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland. Key testimony from Apple CEO Tim Cook, Epic CEO Tim Sweeney, and senior Apple executives addressed App Store economics, market-definition arguments, and developer-relations practices. Apple argued the App Store was part of a competitive smartphone-platform market (where iOS competed with Android) and that the 30 percent commission was reasonable consideration for the App Store services. Epic argued the relevant market was “iOS app distribution” specifically, where Apple had monopoly power.

On September 10, 2021 Judge Gonzalez Rogers issued the ruling. The court found Apple had not violated federal antitrust law (the Sherman Act) — Epic lost on 9 of 10 counts. The court found that the relevant market was not “iOS app distribution” (Apple's preferred framing for that question prevailed) but did find Apple violated California's Unfair Competition Law by prohibiting developers from steering users to alternative payment methods through the App Store. The court ordered Apple to remove the anti-steering provisions. Epic was ordered to pay Apple $3.6 million in damages for the August 2020 policy violation.

The 2021-2025 appeals and follow-up rulings

Both sides appealed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed most of the District Court ruling in April 2023. The US Supreme Court declined to review the case in January 2024. The original anti-steering injunction went into effect, requiring Apple to allow developers to communicate with users about alternative payment methods. Apple's initial implementation was widely criticised by developers as insufficient — Apple permitted external links but imposed conditions including a 27 percent commission on transactions completed within seven days of clicking through, plus various disclosure requirements that developers argued made the change substantively meaningless.

Epic filed a contempt motion arguing Apple's implementation violated the spirit of the injunction. On April 30, 2025 Judge Gonzalez Rogers issued a follow-up ruling finding Apple in willful violation of the original injunction. The ruling substantially expanded developer rights to steer users to external payment methods without Apple commission. Apple has continued to push back through additional appeals and operational changes. The full scope of the post-2025 App Store changes is still being implemented through 2025-2026.

How RGM thinks about platform-antitrust outcomes

When clients ask about platform-antitrust dynamics, the Epic-Apple case is the defining recent example of how slow and complex such cases can be even with high-quality plaintiff investment. Five-plus years from the August 2020 trigger event to the April 2025 follow-up ruling, with the implementation still ongoing through 2026. Three structural lessons. First, the market-definition question is the most important factor in app-store antitrust cases — whether the relevant market is “iOS app distribution” (Epic's frame) or “smartphone platforms” (Apple's frame) determines whether monopoly power exists. The District Court rejected Epic's framing, which limited the federal antitrust outcome. Second, state-law claims (California Unfair Competition Law in this case) can produce meaningful injunctive relief even when federal antitrust claims fail. Third, injunction-implementation can become a multi-year follow-on dispute — Apple's initial implementation of the anti-steering injunction was the subject of the 2025 contempt finding.

The pattern is structural to platform-antitrust enforcement. We tell clients in platform-dependent businesses to expect multi-year timelines from filing to substantive change and to plan for incremental rather than transformative regulatory outcomes. The broader app-store regulatory environment has continued to evolve in parallel through the EU Digital Markets Act (effective March 2024), pending US state-level legislation, and ongoing DOJ scrutiny of various platform practices. Epic-Apple is one of multiple converging pressures on app-store economics rather than a single decisive case.

Frequently asked questions

Related