Fortnite is back on the App Store in every country except Australia, Epic Games announced today, as the company declared it is entering the "final battle" of its long-running legal dispute with Apple.


Epic said the decision to push Fortnite back onto iOS globally was prompted by Apple's own words to the U.S. Supreme Court, in which Apple acknowledged that "regulators around the world are watching this case to determine what commission rate Apple may charge on covered purchases in huge markets outside the United States." Epic CEO Tim Sweeney framed the move as a strategic provocation, writing on X that the return marks "the beginning of the end of the Apple Tax worldwide."

The return follows Fortnite's reinstatement to the U.S. App Store in May 2025 after nearly five years off the platform. The return was forced after District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers threatened to require the Apple official overseeing app decisions to appear in court, which prompted Apple to approve the submission. Today's worldwide rollout extends that comeback to most remaining markets, with Epic expressing confidence that an upcoming court-ordered transparency process will expose what the company calls Apple's "junk fees."

Apple knows the U.S. federal court will force it to be transparent about how it charges its App Store fees. Fortnite is returning to the App Store now because we are confident that once Apple is forced to show its costs, governments around the world will not allow Apple junk fees to stand.

In late April, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a stay that had allowed Apple to pause its compliance with rulings on ‌App Store‌ fees, sending the case back to Judge Gonzalez Rogers to determine what commission Apple can charge on purchases made via external links, if any.

Epic said it will "continue to challenge Apple's anticompetitive ‌App Store‌ practices of banning alternative app stores and competition in payments," pointing to regulatory momentum in Japan, the European Union, and the United Kingdom. The company alleged that Apple has "evaded the laws with scare screens, fees and onerous requirements" in each of those jurisdictions.

Australia is the one major market where Fortnite has not returned. Epic said it won its court case there and that an Australian court found many of Apple's developer terms to be unlawful, but Apple continues to enforce those terms regardless. Epic said it cannot return "under an illegal payment arrangement" and is waiting for a court order to compel Apple to comply.
This article, "Fortnite Returns to the App Store Worldwide as Epic Signals 'Final Battle' With Apple" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Apple plans to ask the United States Supreme Court to weigh in on the App Store fee restrictions and contempt of court ruling levied against it in the ongoing Epic Games vs. Apple legal battle.


In a filing on April 3 (via TechCrunch), Apple asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to hold off on a plan that would see the U.S. Northern District of California decide on a reasonable commission for Apple to charge developers for purchases made from a link in an app. Apple is concerned that the district court will decide on a fee, only to have the Supreme Court then reverse the ruling in its entirety.

Apple says that it does not want to make multiple major changes to its ‌App Store‌ fee structure. Instead, Apple proposes that the current no-commission setup remain in place until Apple hears back from the Supreme Court. Developers can currently include links to non-App Store purchase options in their apps and Apple charges no fee from purchases made using those links. Apple wants to continue fee-free links and hold off on the long legal battle to determine a fee for the time being.

Apple has not petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case yet, and there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will do so. Back in 2024, both Apple and Epic Games asked the Supreme Court to make a ruling in their ongoing dispute, but the Supreme Court denied the request. Apple is going to ask the Supreme Court to hear the contempt aspect of the case, and there's a non-zero chance the Supreme Court will agree.

Back in April 2025, Apple was found to have violated a 2021 injunction requiring it to let developers direct customers to third-party purchase options on the web with in-app links. The injunction stemmed from the ‌Epic Games‌ legal battle, which Apple won almost entirely. Apple was not found to have a monopoly, but the judge overseeing the case, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, ordered Apple to relax its "anti-steering" link rules.

Apple implemented new App Store rules, but only slightly lowered its fees. Apple charged a 12 to 27 percent commission instead of a 15 to 30 percent commission for purchases made via a web link, and the high fee combined with third-party payment fees meant almost no developers opted to add links. ‌Epic Games‌ accused Apple of charging "unjustified fees," and asked the court to decide whether Apple was complying with the injunction. The court found that Apple was in "willful violation," and Gonzalez Rogers banned Apple from collecting any fee on links at all.

Apple immediately appealed the ruling, but dropped link fees in April 2025. Apple argued that the ruling was unconstitutional and that it should receive compensation for its technology. In December 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals handed down a mixed ruling, agreeing that Apple violated the injunction, but questioning the severity of the response. The appeals court suggested Apple should be able to charge a reasonable fee, and tasked the district court with deciding what the fee should be.

Apple is hoping the Supreme Court will do what the appeals court did not, and vacate the district court's ruling entirely. Apple plans to challenge the contempt ruling and the scope of the injunction, which Apple argues should not extend to all developers nationwide, instead applying only to developers connected to ‌Epic Games‌. Apple is questioning the civil contempt ruling and the court's ruling that Apple violated the "spirit" of the injunction rather than the direct text. Apple says that it should not be held in contempt because the injunction had no specific wording about commissions. It's possible the spirit vs. plain text dispute will catch the Supreme Court's attention.

If the appeals court agrees to Apple's plan, the fee calculation hearing in the district court will be put on pause until the Supreme Court makes a decision. After an appeals court ruling, the Supreme Court is the last stop. If the Supreme Court decides not to hear the case, the appeals court ruling will stand and the district court will be able to proceed with deciding on a fee.

Should the appeals court not grant Apple's request for a stay, the district court will start the fee calculation process while Apple simultaneously petitions the Supreme Court and waits to hear back.
This article, "Apple Asks Court to Pause App Store Fee Fight While It Petitions Supreme Court in Epic Games Case" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Google has proposed sweeping changes to its Play Store and Android to end an ongoing antitrust dispute with Epic Games. The two companies filed a joint settlement agreement with the court last night, and if approved, Apple will be left as the only company embroiled in a public antitrust fight with Epic.


Google will allow Android app developers to use alternative payment methods in apps or through external links instead of forcing them to use Google Play Billing. Google is supporting Registered App Stores, which are alternative app stores that can be easily installed alongside Google Play. ‌Epic Games‌ would be a Registered App Store, able to be installed on Android devices to offer its own catalog of app titles.

As for fees, Google will charge a maximum of 9 percent or 20 percent based on transaction type and date of install, with the lowered fees applicable worldwide instead of solely in the United States. Google can charge a fee for transactions completed using alternative payment methods, and it is also able to charge an additional fee for transactions processed by Google Play Billing.

The wording around fees is complicated and could be somewhat open to interpretation for virtual items in games, plus it applies to new app installs, not existing app installs. Google can charge a 20 percent fee for in-game purchases providing more than a de minimis gameplay advantage, which would presumably be things like power ups, items that increase experience, or loot boxes.

Google can only charge a 9 percent fee for items that do not affect gameplay, such as additional levels, events, or Fortnite skins that are considered cosmetic. The 9 percent maximum fee is also applicable to in-app subscriptions, non-game app purchases, or up front app and game purchases. In a situation where there's a mixed bundle that includes in-game items like weapons and in-game skins, Google can charge the higher 20 percent rate. Google told The Verge that it would also charge a five percent fee for apps that choose to use the Google Play Billing system, which would be in addition to the 9 to 20 percent fee.

To simplify, the base fee for all apps will be 9 percent, while fees for games will range from 9 percent to 20 percent. Developers will pay another five percent if using Google Play Billing. For alternative app stores, Google is able to charge reasonable fees that cover operational costs, but nothing additional. ‌Epic Games‌ will be able to create an ‌Epic Games‌ Store on Android, paying minimal fees to Google, which is what the company set out to do when it initially filed lawsuits against Apple and Google back in 2020. ‌Epic Games‌ CEO Tim Sweeney said that Google's proposal is "awesome" and a "comprehensive solution that stands in contrast to Apple's model of blocking all competing stores."


Google agreed not to enter into agreements that would see apps launch "first or exclusively" on Google Play, and it will not require an app to provide the same features on Google Play that it does on another app store. Developers are also free to communicate with customers about cheaper prices available outside of the Google Play Store.

It's possible that Google's settlement with ‌Epic Games‌ could impact the eventual outcome of the ‌Epic Games‌ v. Apple case. Apple and Google have charged developers similar fees historically, and there is inevitable change coming to the ‌App Store‌ ecosystem.

There are important differences between the two legal disputes, however, so what's going on with Google is not directly applicable to Apple. In Epic v. Apple, Apple largely won the case. The judge did not find that Apple had a monopoly, and Apple was only required to allow developers to link to web-based purchase options.

In Epic v. Google, Google lost. If Google didn't settle with Epic, it was going to be forced to make Play Store changes anyway. A jury decided that Google abused its power by operating an app store monopoly and charging developers exorbitant fees. Google has also always allowed for sideloading on Android devices and has been more open to it, even though it isn't as easy as it will be in the future.

Apple has consistently opposed sideloading and will not likely make the same concessions that Google made without being forced into it.

In Epic v. Apple, Apple is currently fighting an injunction requiring it to allow developers to link to outside purchase options in apps in the U.S. Apple is currently not allowed to collect fees on purchases made through in-app links, an order that came after the court found that Apple had willfully violated the original order requiring links by controlling the appearance of links and charging high fees.

The court is planning to review the proposed Epic v. Google settlement on November 6.
This article, "Google Agrees to Make Major Play Store Changes to Settle Epic Games Antitrust Lawsuit" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Apple returned to court this week to argue that a federal judge exceeded their authority when they held the company in contempt and barred it from collecting any commission on external in-app transactions, Bloomberg reports.


Apple told the appeals court that a U.S. District Judge went further than their 2021 order allowed when they banned Apple from taking any commission on purchases made outside apps. Apple said the order only required it to allow links to outside payments, not to stop collecting fees entirely.

Apple argued that if the judge disagreed with its approach, they should have clarified the order instead of punishing the company for contempt. It told the judges that the contempt ruling was "punitive" and that Apple is entitled to "some compensation" when developers use its platform and ecosystem.

Epic told the court that Apple knowingly violated the order instead of asking for clarification. The company said Apple only started claiming it should be paid for external purchases after it was caught violating the injunction.

The case arises from Epic's 2020 decision to add an external payment link to Fortnite, which led to its removal from the App Store. In response to the 2021 order allowing alternative payments, Apple created a new 27% fee on external transactions. Epic argued this violated the spirit of the order. A judge later agreed and held Apple in contempt, banning any commission on external payments. Apple is now asking the Ninth Circuit to overturn that contempt ruling.
This article, "Apple and Epic Return to Court as Judges Question Prior Rulings" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

The court order that required Apple to collect no fees from developers who link to purchases outside of the App Store is unconstitutional, Apple said today in a reply brief directed at Epic Games and filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Apple argues that it has been stripped of its rights to be compensated for its intellectual property in a ruling that sets a dangerous precedent for all companies.


Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who has been overseeing the Apple vs. ‌Epic Games‌ lawsuit, first ordered Apple in 2021 to let developers add in-app links directing customers to third-party purchase options on the web. Apple didn't have to implement the changes until 2024, and when it did, Apple charged a 12 to 27 percent fee for purchases made through links in an app. ‌Epic Games‌ went back to the judge and said Apple was charging "unjustified fees" and should be held in contempt of court.

Gonzalez Rogers agreed with Epic and said that Apple was in "willful violation" of the original order. In April 2025, Apple was given a much more specific mandate to allow linking with no fees and no control over how links are presented in an app, which was a win for ‌Epic Games‌ and for other app developers unhappy with paying fees to link out to the web. Apple implemented the changes, but appealed the ruling.

According to Apple, the 12 to 27 percent fee that it was charging and the rules that it had implemented around link design complied with the original order. The April ruling [PDF] forcing Apple to implement ‌App Store‌ changes said that Apple had not followed the "spirit of the injunction" and had instead used a "dubiously literal interpretation," a point that Epic emphasized in its own filing with the court. In response, Apple argues that this is a weak argument that led to the injunction being expanded beyond what is permissible by law.

The new injunction imposes, in meticulous detail, new design and formatting rules and dictates the messages that Apple may convey to its own users on its own platform. These requirements represent an improper expansion and modification of the original injunction—rather than an attempt to enforce compliance with the original injunction—and violate the First Amendment by forcing Apple to convey messages it disagrees with. Epic doubles down on the district court's emphasis on the "spirit" of the original injunction and Apple’s supposed bad faith, but civil contempt turns on whether a party has violated the actual terms of an injunction—which Epic does not meaningfully try to show

Apple argues that it should be able to ask for compensation for its IP protected technologies, and that the court should have forced compliance with the original injunction instead of rewriting the injunction with new terms that prohibit Apple from collecting fees.

The district court's sweeping new zero-commission rule also is not tailored to Epic's claimed harm, improperly imposes a punitive sanction, and effects an unconstitutional taking.

Should the Ninth Circuit Court find the updated injunction lawful, Apple suggests that the recent Trump v. Casa Supreme Court ruling [PDF] needs to be considered. The ruling said courts do not have the authority to issue universal injunctions that are "broader than necessary to provide complete relief" to the plaintiffs in the case. ‌Epic Games‌ is the only plaintiff in the case, so Apple also argues that the injunction changing the ‌App Store‌ rules for all developers is too broad. Apple says that the injunction should be tailored to Epic and Epic's interests alone.

Epic has never demonstrated how requiring Apple to permit all manner of linked-out purchases from any developer—and prohibiting Apple from collecting any commission on such purchases—is necessary to remedy Epic’s full harm, particularly for linked-out transactions that do not involve Epic. Just the opposite, Epic has lined up amici to describe how they wish to steer on the back of Apple's IP-protected technologies at zero cost to themselves, and not to the Epic Games Store.

... Requiring Apple to permit linked-out transactions to Spotify, Microsoft, or Amazon does not benefit Epic in any way and is not necessary to remedy any harm suffered by Epic.

Apple wants the new injunction vacated, and the original injunction reconsidered to determine whether it is too broad.

As of right now, Apple is required to allow all developers in the U.S. to provide links to external websites with no restrictions on link design and no fees. If the appeals court rules in Apple's favor, Apple could change its ‌App Store‌ rules again to reimplement fees.
This article, "Apple Says App Store Changes Go Too Far in New Epic Games Appeal Filing" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums