According to Thurrott.com, a federal appeals court has affirmed the contempt ruling against Apple in the ongoing Epic Games antitrust case. The three-judge panel upheld Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’s finding that Apple violated her injunction with “two restrictions” that broke the strict letter of the order and others that defeated its spirit. The court confirmed that most of the sanctions Judge Rogers imposed were legal, including her scathing assessment that Apple acted with “willful and belligerent” non-compliance. However, the panel did reverse one part, sending the issue of Apple’s 27 percent commission on external purchases back to Judge Rogers. The judges asked her to reconsider whether Apple should be allowed to collect any fee for purchases made outside the App Store, just not necessarily the high rate it tried to impose. This means a new hearing is likely where Apple will argue for some commission.
Contempt Confirmed, But the Fight’s Not Over
So, Apple lost the main battle here. Big time. The appeals court basically said, “Yep, you were in contempt, and the judge was right to call you out for it.” That’s a massive blow to Apple’s strategy of slow-walking and technically complying with the injunction. It confirms that the court saw Apple’s moves—like that 27% fee and labyrinthine link-out rules—as bad-faith efforts to maintain its grip. But here’s the thing: the court also gave Apple a tiny lifeline. By asking Judge Rogers to reconsider the total ban on collecting a commission, they’ve opened the door for Apple to maybe, maybe, get something. It’s a classic judicial compromise: slap the wrist for bad behavior, but acknowledge the underlying business model debate isn’t fully settled.
What’s the Real Game Now?
Now the action goes back to Judge Rogers. And let’s be honest, she’s probably not thrilled. This court affirmed her contempt finding, which validates her view of Apple’s conduct, but then told her to re-examine the commission issue. I think the big question is: what does a “small commission” even look like? Apple argued its 27% was justified to cover IP and ecosystem costs. The judge and Epic see it as an anti-steering penalty designed to make outside links pointless. Is 15% “small”? 10%? Anything above the standard payment processing fee of 3-4% is arguably still a tax meant to discourage competition. Apple’s going to push for the highest number it can get away with, framing it as a “fair” rate. But after being held in contempt, does it have much credibility left in her courtroom?
The Broader Implications Are Huge
Look, this isn’t just about a few percentage points on Fortnite V-Bucks. This is about the fundamental model of walled-garden platforms. If Apple can successfully argue for a commission—even a reduced one—on all external purchases, it sets a precedent. Other platforms could point to it. It potentially legitimizes the idea that a gatekeeper is entitled to a toll for any transaction that originates in its ecosystem, forever. That’s a powerful concept for Apple to establish. On the flip side, if Judge Rogers says “no commission at all,” it’s a stark message that anti-steering means actually allowing developers to steer users away without penalty. The outcome here will ripple far beyond Epic, affecting every app developer and the entire digital economy. So, while Apple lost the contempt appeal, the war over the future of app store economics is very much still on.
