The court docket order that required Apple to gather no charges from builders who hyperlink to purchases exterior of the App Store is unconstitutional, Apple mentioned in the present day in a reply temporary directed at Epic Games and filed with the Ninth Circuit Courtroom of Appeals. Apple argues that it has been stripped of its rights to be compensated for its mental property in a ruling that units a harmful precedent for all corporations.

Choose Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who has been overseeing the Apple vs. ‌Epic Games‌ lawsuit, first ordered Apple in 2021 to let builders add in-app hyperlinks directing prospects to third-party buy choices on the net. Apple did not must implement the adjustments till 2024, and when it did, Apple charged a 12 to 27 p.c payment for purchases made via hyperlinks in an app. ‌Epic Games‌ went again to the decide and mentioned Apple was charging “unjustified charges” and must be held in contempt of court docket.

Gonzalez Rogers agreed with Epic and mentioned that Apple was in “willful violation” of the unique order. In April 2025, Apple was given a way more particular mandate to permit linking with no charges and no management over how hyperlinks are offered in an app, which was a win for ‌Epic Games‌ and for different app builders sad with paying charges to hyperlink out to the net. Apple applied the adjustments, however appealed the ruling.

In line with Apple, the 12 to 27 p.c payment that it was charging and the foundations that it had applied round hyperlink design complied with the unique order. The April ruling [PDF] forcing Apple to implement ‌App Store‌ adjustments mentioned that Apple had not adopted the “spirit of the injunction” and had as a substitute used a “dubiously literal interpretation,” some extent that Epic emphasised in its personal submitting with the court docket. In response, Apple argues that it is a weak argument that led to the injunction being expanded past what’s permissible by legislation.

The brand new injunction imposes, in meticulous element, new design and formatting guidelines and dictates the messages that Apple could convey to its personal customers by itself platform. These necessities symbolize an improper growth and modification of the unique injunction—reasonably than an try and implement compliance with the unique injunction—and violate the First Modification by forcing Apple to convey messages it disagrees with. Epic doubles down on the district court docket’s emphasis on the “spirit” of the unique injunction and Apple’s supposed dangerous religion, however civil contempt activates whether or not a celebration has violated the precise phrases of an injunction—which Epic doesn’t meaningfully attempt to present

Apple argues that it ought to be capable to ask for compensation for its IP protected applied sciences, and that the court docket ought to have pressured compliance with the unique injunction as a substitute of rewriting the injunction with new phrases that prohibit Apple from amassing charges.

The district court docket’s sweeping new zero-commission rule additionally isn’t tailor-made to Epic’s claimed hurt, improperly imposes a punitive sanction, and results an unconstitutional taking.

Ought to the Ninth Circuit Courtroom discover the up to date injunction lawful, Apple means that the current Trump v. Casa Supreme Courtroom ruling [PDF] must be thought of. The ruling mentioned courts should not have the authority to subject common injunctions which are “broader than mandatory to supply full aid” to the plaintiffs in the case. ‌Epic Games‌ is the one plaintiff in the case, so Apple additionally argues that the injunction altering the ‌App Store‌ guidelines for all builders is simply too broad. Apple says that the injunction must be tailor-made to Epic and Epic’s pursuits alone.

Epic has by no means demonstrated how requiring Apple to allow all method of linked-out purchases from any developer—and prohibiting Apple from amassing any fee on such purchases—is critical to treatment Epic’s full hurt, notably for linked-out transactions that don’t contain Epic. Simply the alternative, Epic has lined up amici to explain how they want to steer on the again of Apple’s IP-protected applied sciences at zero price to themselves, and to not the Epic Games Store.

… Requiring Apple to allow linked-out transactions to Spotify, Microsoft, or Amazon doesn’t profit Epic in any manner and isn’t essential to treatment any hurt suffered by Epic.

Apple needs the brand new injunction vacated, and the unique injunction reconsidered to find out whether or not it’s too broad.

As of proper now, Apple is required to permit all builders in the U.S. to supply hyperlinks to exterior web sites with no restrictions on hyperlink design and no charges. If the appeals court docket guidelines in Apple’s favor, Apple might change its ‌App Store‌ guidelines once more to reimplement charges.