Apple forced to change App Store

Apple lost its pause in the Epic Games case on April 28, and the App Store changes it was trying to delay can now move ahead. (ca9.uscourts.gov) A two-judge Ninth Circuit panel and Chief District Judge Michael McShane, sitting by designation, granted Epic’s motion for reconsideration and reversed the court’s April 6 order that had stayed the mandate. The new order says the mandate “shall issue in its usual course.” (ca9.uscourts.gov) The panel said Apple had not shown a substantial question for Supreme Court review, a significant possibility of reversal, or irreparable harm if the mandate was not stayed. It pointed to the Supreme Court’s 2024 denial of Apple’s earlier cert petition and said Apple had not shown a circuit split. (ca9.uscourts.gov) This fight is about “anti-steering” rules, the App Store terms that limit how developers tell users about paying somewhere else. In Epic’s case, courts have been testing whether Apple can allow outside-payment links on paper while making them too costly or awkward to use in practice. (techcrunch.com) (ca9.uscourts.gov) The December 11, 2025 appellate opinion kept the core injunction in place and upheld the contempt finding against Apple. The court said Apple’s 27% commission on purchases made through external links had a “prohibitive effect” and that Apple’s link-design restrictions also violated the injunction. (ca9.uscourts.gov) That means the immediate pressure is not on whether Apple will ask the Supreme Court to step in; Apple said on April 6 that it planned to do that. The immediate pressure is on how Apple rewrites App Store rules while the cert petition is still only a petition. (techcrunch.com) (ca9.uscourts.gov) Apple has argued that its external-payment fee covers distribution, discovery, and developer tools rather than payment processing alone. Epic has argued that the fee and the surrounding restrictions were built to preserve Apple’s economics after the original injunction. (techcrunch.com) (ca9.uscourts.gov) The case does not turn Apple into a monopoly loser; the 2021 trial largely went Apple’s way on that question. It turns on whether Apple complied with the one part of the original order it did lose: letting developers steer users to payment options outside the App Store. (techcrunch.com) For developers, the practical question is whether external links become cheaper, clearer, and easier to approve in review. For Apple, the next move is to seek Supreme Court review without the shelter of the stay it won, and then lost, in April. (ca9.uscourts.gov)