Apple is back in court, this time telling the Ninth Circuit that a judge’s latest order on the App Store is unconstitutional.
On the surface, it looks like a technical fight over commissions and links, but there’s a bigger issue hiding underneath: who gets to benefit from Apple’s investment in the iPhone without paying for it.
Here’s what’s happening. In 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to allow apps to include web links for in-app purchases.
Also: 10+ CarPlay features in iOS 26 that fix what’s always been broken (and add what’s been missing)
Apple delayed until 2024, then rolled out rules that still charged developers a 12 to 27 percent fee if those links led to sales.
Epic Games wasn’t happy and pushed back, arguing Apple was violating the “spirit” of the order. The judge sided with Epic this past spring, tightening the rules and banning Apple from collecting any fee at all on linked-out transactions.
Apple claims it has the right to be compensated for its own technology and ecosystem, arguing that imposing a zero-fee rule would amount to taking away its intellectual property. They also argue that Epic is asking for more than it deserves.
Epic’s lawsuit was about Fortnite. So why should companies like Spotify, Amazon, or Microsoft suddenly get to piggyback on Apple’s platform without paying anything?
And this is where things get interesting. For all the criticism Apple takes about App Store fees, it’s hard to deny that the company built the entire system that made these apps possible in the first place.
Apple invested billions in hardware, software, and security to create an iPhone experience that people trust with their most sensitive data. Epic didn’t build that. Spotify didn’t build that. Yet both want to use Apple’s rails at zero cost.
Think about it another way. If you built a toll road and spent years maintaining it, should anyone be able to drive on it for free just because they don’t like paying?
That’s the analogy Apple is pushing here. It resonates with many people who understand the value of work and ownership.
Of course, Epic frames it differently. It states that Apple is abusing its power and keeping too much control. That’s a compelling argument for developers who don’t want to hand over part of their revenue.
But the judge’s expanded order didn’t just level the playing field. It tilted it. Apple is now forced to host, secure, and design around purchase flows that it has no control over, all without receiving any compensation.
Also: I swore I’d never leave Spotify, but Apple just fixed the pain point that finally made me switch
If the ruling stands, it will set a precedent that intellectual property can be commandeered without payment.
That’s a slippery slope, not just for Apple but for every tech company that invests in building a platform.
The Ninth Circuit now has the case, and Apple is requesting that the sweeping injunction be reversed.
If the judges agree, the fees could be reinstated. If not, Apple will be stuck maintaining an App Store where rivals enjoy all the benefits without contributing a cent.
And that’s the heart of the fight. Apple built the ecosystem, and they want to have the right to decide how others use it.
Epic says Apple’s fees are unfair. Apple says its work deserves compensation. Whose side are you on and why?
