Apple Faces Criminal Probe After Defying Court Order in Epic Games Antitrust Battle

In a major development in the ongoing legal clash between Apple and Epic Games, a U.S. federal judge ruled that Apple violated a standing court order intended to boost competition within its App Store. The order, stemming from an antitrust case filed by Epic, required Apple to allow alternative payment options and ease its control over app distribution. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who presided over the case in Oakland, California, has now referred the matter to federal prosecutors for potential criminal contempt proceedings.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers issued an 80-page decision highlighting Apple’s non-compliance with the original injunction. She emphasized that Apple had continued to interfere with fair market competition and stated firmly that such behavior would not be tolerated. The judge underscored the seriousness of the situation, stating, “This is an injunction, not a negotiation,” and warned that willfully ignoring a court order leaves no room for second chances.

The original dispute dates back to 2020, when Epic Games challenged Apple’s tight control over app payments and distribution. Epic argued that Apple imposed excessive commission fees—30% on in-app purchases—and unfairly restricted developers from guiding users toward more affordable payment options. In 2021, Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in violation of California’s competition laws and ordered reforms that would grant developers more freedom.

Despite this ruling, Apple made unsuccessful efforts to overturn the injunction, including a failed appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023. In March 2024, Epic returned to court, alleging that Apple had flagrantly disregarded the court’s directives. The company highlighted Apple’s introduction of a 27% fee on transactions conducted outside the App Store—an alternative the court had required Apple to allow.

In addition to the new fee, Epic accused Apple of attempting to dissuade users from choosing non-Apple payment methods by displaying warning messages about the supposed risks of using external links. Epic described Apple’s revised policy as “commercially unusable,” arguing that the system was intentionally designed to render third-party payment options ineffective.

Apple, for its part, has denied any wrongdoing. In a court filing dated March 7, the tech company claimed that it had made significant efforts to adhere to the injunction. Apple stated that it sought to comply while maintaining its core business model and protecting consumer safety. Nevertheless, the court found these actions insufficient and potentially deceptive.

During a prior hearing, Judge Gonzalez Rogers expressed skepticism about Apple’s intentions. She remarked that the company’s changes to the App Store appeared to serve no legitimate purpose other than to suppress competition. Her statement added weight to Epic’s accusations and laid the foundation for Wednesday’s ruling.

At the time of the decision, neither Apple nor Epic Games offered public comment. However, with Apple now facing a possible criminal contempt investigation, the legal stakes have grown significantly. The case could have long-term implications not only for Apple’s App Store policies but also for how courts handle future antitrust violations in the tech industry.