Judge Tells Apple: Fix App Store Rules or Send an Executive Back to Court Well, here we are again. The seemingly never-ending legal saga between Apple and Epic Games has taken another dramatic turn, and frankly, it doesn't look great for Cupertino. A federal judge, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, is clearly fed up, issuing a stern warning to Apple: get your act together and comply with a previous court order, or prepare to send an executive back into the courtroom hot seat . This isn't just about a spat between a tech giant and a game developer anymore. It's about whether Apple is truly following a judicial mandate and, perhaps more disturbingly, whether one of its executives might have misled the court under oath . Yeah, that's a pretty big deal. A Quick Recap: How Did We Get Here? Remember back in 2020 when Epic Games, the folks behind the wildly popular Fortnite, decided they'd had enough of Apple's App Store rules? They sued, alleging monopolistic practices . The core of the complaint? Apple forces developers to use its in-app payment system, taking a hefty commission (usually 30%) on every transaction. Epic tried to bypass this, Apple yanked Fortnite from the store, and the legal battle was on. In 2021, Judge Rogers issued a ruling that, while largely favoring Apple on the broader antitrust claims, did include one significant injunction . This injunction required Apple to stop preventing developers from telling users about alternative payment methods outside of the App Store. No more "anti-steering" rules that keep users locked into Apple's system. Simple enough, right? Apparently not. The Alleged Non-Compliance Fast forward to today, and Epic's Fortnite is still conspicuously absent from the US App Store . Why? Because Epic wants to use its own payment system, and Apple's response to the injunction has been... well, controversial. Instead of just letting developers point users elsewhere commission-free, Apple introduced a new policy. Developers can link out, but if a user makes a purchase within seven days of clicking that link, Apple demands a 27% commission . A 27% fee just for allowing a link? Many, including the judge, see this as a clear attempt to undermine the spirit, if not the letter, of the injunction. It feels less like compliance and more like finding the most expensive loophole possible. Judge Rogers didn't mince words. She stated that nearly every decision Apple made regarding these new policies was, in her view, anti-competitive . It's hard to argue when the fee is only slightly less than the original 30% and still applies even when Apple isn't processing the payment. The Perjury Bombshell But the fee isn't the only issue. The judge also raised serious concerns about the testimony of an Apple executive during the proceedings related to this new policy. The executive reportedly testified under oath that the 27% fee structure wasn't finalized until January 2024 . However, evidence presented later suggested that Apple had actually finalized this structure much earlier, by July 2023 . This discrepancy is significant. It implies that the executive's testimony was false, and worse, that Apple's presentation of internal discussions might have been "tailor-made for litigation" rather than reflecting the actual timeline and decision-making process . Lying under oath? That's not just a legal setback; that's potentially criminal contempt . The Judge's Wrath Judge Rogers' recent order is scathing . She's clearly frustrated by what she perceives as Apple's deliberate refusal to fully comply with the 2021 ruling . She described Apple's handling of the situation as deceptive and stated it forced the executive to lie . Ouch. The warning is stark: Apple needs to resolve the issues with its anti-steering policies and potentially with Epic directly, or an executive will be summoned back to court to explain themselves . Furthermore, the judge has taken the extraordinary step of referring the matter to the US Attorney’s Office for potential criminal contempt charges against Apple and relevant individuals . This isn't just a slap on the wrist. This is the court saying, "We gave you a clear instruction, and we believe you are intentionally ignoring it and possibly lying about it." What Happens Now? The ball is firmly back in Apple's court. They have to decide how to respond to this very serious warning. Do they adjust their 27% fee policy to genuinely comply with the injunction? Do they try to negotiate with Epic to get Fortnite back on the store under terms that satisfy the court? Or do they dig in their heels and risk facing the judge again, potentially under the cloud of a criminal contempt investigation? Epic, for its part, is pushing hard. They've filed motions specifically asking the judge to force Apple to approve Fortnite for the US App Store, arguing that Apple is deliberately blocking its return despite the earlier ruling . Epic CEO Tim Sweeney has publicly welcomed the judge's decision, seeing it as validation of their position . In my view, this situation highlights the ongoing tension between platform control and developer freedom. Apple argues its fees are necessary for maintaining the App Store ecosystem – security, curation, etc. But critics, and now seemingly the court, see it as leveraging market dominance to stifle competition and extract rents . This latest development is a powerful reminder that even the biggest companies aren't above the law. The judge's patience has worn thin, and the consequences for continued non-compliance could be severe. It's a fascinating, if concerning, turn in a case that continues to shape the future of digital marketplaces. We'll be watching closely to see what Apple does next.
