If you keep an eye on news from the world of tech, you have probably heard about the Epic Games versus Apple lawsuit. And if you play games on an iPhone, there’s a good chance you have felt its impact without really connecting the dots. A game disappearing from the App Store without warning, an in-app purchase option quietly removed and more; these are the kind of changes many iPhone users have run into over the years. What started in 2020 as a seemingly dramatic standoff between a game studio and the Cupertino-based tech giant has slowly turned into one of the most influential legal battles the app economy has ever seen.
SurveyAnd this month, the battle entered yet another complicated chapter. Apple managed to convince a US appeals court that it should be allowed to charge a commission on purchases made outside the App Store, but not without limits. At the same time, the court rejected Apple’s attempt to fully escape the consequences of earlier rulings, keeping pressure firmly on the company. Epic Games, unsurprisingly, called it a win. CEO Tim Sweeney hailed the decision as a blow against what he describes as Apple’s ‘giant junk fees’, signalling that developers may finally see real change after years of legal gridlock.
Also read: Steam Winter Sale 2025 begins: Arc Raiders, Silent Hill and other games get heavy discounts
But the case between Epic Games and Apple has never really been about one game or one fee. The case has actually been a long and messy argument about who controls digital storefronts, how much power platform owners should have, and what freedom developers should realistically expect when they build businesses on closed ecosystems. Five years on, the story continues. And if you still aren’t aware of it, here’s everything you should know.
The day when it all began
In August 2020, Epic Games did something almost unheard of for a company that depended heavily on mobile platforms. It knowingly broke the rules. Through an update internally labelled Project Liberty, Epic added a direct payment option inside Fortnite on iOS and Android. Players were offered a discount if they bypassed Apple’s in-app purchase system and paid Epic directly.
The move resulted in a response from Apple within hours, and Fortnite was removed from the App Store. Epic responded within minutes with a parody video that cast Apple as an Orwellian gatekeeper. Within days, a lawsuit followed.
At the time, it was easy to see this as a publicity stunt wrapped in legal language. A popular game picking a fight with the most powerful app marketplace in the world. But Epic was not chasing a quick win. It was setting the stage for a much longer confrontation about who controls mobile software and how much that control should cost.
The initial verdict
The initial court battle unfolded slowly, packed with technical arguments about market definitions, commissions, and developer agreements. Epic argued that Apple’s App Store policies were monopolistic and anti-competitive. Apple countered that its platform was a curated ecosystem, not a public utility, and that developers agreed to its terms willingly.
When the first major ruling arrived in September 2021, it landed somewhere in the middle. The court rejected most of Epic’s monopoly claims, siding with Apple on nine out of ten counts. But one part of Apple’s system did not survive scrutiny.
Apple’s anti-steering rules, which prevented developers from informing users about alternative payment options, were found to violate California competition law. Apple was ordered to allow developers to link out to other ways of paying.
Thus, it was not a clean victory for either side. Epic did not dismantle the App Store. Apple did not escape unscathed. Both appealed. The case climbed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which largely upheld the original decision in 2023.
When the US Supreme Court declined to hear further appeals in early 2024, it appeared that the legal phase of the story was over. But it was not.
The turning point
Apple updated its US App Store rules to comply, introducing new link-out policies that allowed developers to point users to external payment options. But there was a catch. If a purchase happened within seven days of clicking that link, Apple would still take a 27% commission.
Epic argued that this hollowed out the ruling. Other major tech companies agreed, filing briefs that supported Epic’s claim that Apple was technically complying while practically resisting. In April 2024, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers signalled that these concerns warranted deeper scrutiny. That scrutiny led to a major moment in April 2025, when the court ruled that Apple could not take a commission on purchases made outside apps and could not block developers from directing users to alternative payment systems. For the first time, Apple’s fee structure faced a direct and immediate restriction in the US.
The return of Fortnite, but with conditions
In 2025, Fortnite finally returned to iOS in the US after nearly five years away, with Epic handling purchases outside Apple’s systems. But the return was far from universal.
Following a narrow adjustment in Apple’s appeal at the Ninth Circuit, Apple was allowed to seek a ‘reasonable’ commission on linked-out purchases, while the core injunction remained intact.
Apple began opening iOS to third-party app stores in select regions, including Japan. Epic argued that this openness was largely cosmetic. According to the company, Apple continued to impose fees that discouraged developers from using alternative stores at all. Under those conditions, Epic said Fortnite could not return to iOS in Japan. The result was a fragmented global landscape, where access depended entirely on regional rules and fee structures.
The latest update
This month, the long-running Epic versus Apple dispute returned to the US appeals court once again. Apple persuaded the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to narrow parts of a contempt ruling that would have completely barred it from charging commissions on purchases made outside the App Store. The court agreed that Apple should be allowed to seek a ‘reasonable’ commission on linked-out transactions, but it didn’t give the company a full victory.
Crucially, the appeals court upheld most of the original injunction and the finding that Apple had previously violated a court order. Judges rejected Apple’s argument that the restrictions should apply only to Epic Games, reinforcing that the ruling affects the wider developer ecosystem. The court also left intact limits designed to prevent Apple from undermining alternative payment options through fear-based warnings or restrictive design.
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney welcomed the decision, saying it blocks Apple from imposing what he calls ‘giant junk fees’ on developers and signals that meaningful change is finally underway. While Apple has framed the ruling as a partial win, the outcome keeps regulatory and judicial pressure firmly in place. Rather than closing the case, the decision confirms that the rules governing the App Store are still being rewritten in real time.
What this fight is really about
At this stage, the Epic versus Apple saga is no longer just about Fortnite, commissions, or even Apple itself. It has become a case study in how power shifts when platforms grow faster than the rules designed to govern them.
Apple maintains that its ecosystem prioritises security, quality, and user trust. Epic argues that those values should not come at the cost of competition and developer autonomy. Courts and regulators have not fully sided with either view, instead forcing gradual adjustments that reflect a changing digital economy.
When looked at from a broader perspective, this conflict was inevitable. As app stores evolved into global marketplaces, tensions between control and openness were bound to surface. Epic chose confrontation as its catalyst. Apple chose defence. Regulators stepped in when neither side could fully resolve the imbalance on its own.
What comes next is unlikely to be a single, decisive ending. Instead, the future of app distribution will probably be shaped by incremental changes, regional differences, and ongoing negotiation. The Epic versus Apple story continues not because it lacks resolution, but because the industry itself is still figuring out what fairness looks like in a platform-driven world.
Also read: PC or laptop feeling slow? These 3 tools could help bring performance back
Follow Us
Divyanshi Sharma
Divyanshi Sharma is a media and communications professional with over 8 years of experience in the industry. With a strong background in tech journalism, she has covered everything from the latest gadgets to gaming trends and brings a sharp editorial lens to every story. She holds a master’s diploma in mass communication and a bachelor’s degree in English literature. Her love for writing and gaming began early—often skipping classes to try out the latest titles—which naturally evolved into a career at the intersection of technology and storytelling. When she’s not working, you’ll likely find her exploring virtual worlds on her console or PC, or testing out a new laptop she managed to get her hands on. View Full Profile
