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

An Indian court has ruled that Apple must cooperate with a government investigation into its App Store practices, rejecting the company's attempt to put the case on hold (via Reuters).


The Delhi High Court ruling keeps a probe by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) alive, which found in 2024 that Apple had abused its dominant position in the iPhone apps market. The CCI wants Apple's financial data to calculate potential penalties, but Apple has refused to hand it over so far.

Apple's argument is largely procedural; it is separately challenging the legality of India's penalty framework in court, and says the CCI should wait until that challenge is resolved. India's updated competition law allows fines to be based on a company's global revenue rather than just local earnings, which given Apple's scale could mean enormous exposure.

The court did not give Apple the pause it wanted, but it did prevent the CCI from issuing a final ruling before July 15, buying the company some time. Apple also succeeded in getting certain documents placed on the legal record, though the court order didn't say what they were.

India is one of Apple's most important growth markets. Counterpoint Research puts the company's iPhone market share there at 9%, up from just 4% two years ago. Apple has also been ramping up iPhone manufacturing in the country through Foxconn and Tata as it reduces its dependence on China. A hostile regulatory environment complicates that ambition.

It is also the latest front in a years-long global battle over ‌App Store‌ rules. Apple faces similar scrutiny in the U.S. and Europe, where regulators and courts have pushed back on its control over app distribution and in-app payments.
This article, "India Refuses to Let Apple Pause App Store Antitrust Case" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Apple is facing a fast-track decision on regulatory penalties in India because it has not submitted data sought by the country's antitrust body as part of an investigation into its market practices.


The Competition Commission of India (CCI) ⁠published a report in 2024 that Apple exploited its dominant position in the apps market by forcing developers to use its proprietary in-app purchase system. The report was the result of a case that began in 2021​ after a non-profit group opposed Apple's practices.

Apple in 2024 denied any wrongdoing by arguing that it is a minor presence in India. However, nowadays iPhones have an 9% market share in the country compared to just 4% two years ago, according to data from Counterpoint Research, potentially weakening its case.

According to Reuters, the CCI this month said that Apple has not submitted details of its financials ​and its views on the investigation since October 2024. Instead, Apple has cited a separate case pending in the ​Delhi High Court where the company has challenged India's entire antitrust penalty law.

The CCI typically requires financial ⁠information from companies to calculate penalties when they are found to have contravened the law, but Apple has said it fears it could be fined up to $38 billion. Apple last year said that using global turnover would result in a fine that's "manifestly arbitrary, unconstitutional, grossly disproportionate, and unjust."

Apple in March requested that the CCI put its proceedings "in abeyance" while the High Court case plays out, but the CCI has rejected that demand and suggested Apple is trying to stall the antitrust case, which is just one of many that the company is facing around the globe.

The CCI has given Apple two more weeks to file its responses and has for the first time fixed a final hearing date of May 21.
This article, "Apple Withholds Data as India Antitrust Case Advances to Final Hearing" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

A new UK class action lawsuit against Apple seeks billions in damages by alleging that the company unlawfully restricted competition in contactless payments on the iPhone through Apple Pay, The Guardian reports.


The proposed opt-out collective action filed this week in the UK alleges that Apple abused its position in the market by limiting access to the ‌iPhone‌'s near-field communication (NFC) technology and charging fees to banks for the use of ‌Apple Pay‌. The claim seeks up to £1.5 billion (approximately $2 billion) in damages on behalf of an estimated 50 million UK consumers.

The complainant argues that ‌Apple Pay‌ has effectively been the only contactless mobile payment option available to ‌iPhone‌ users in the UK since its launch in 2015. According to the filing, Apple declined to grant third-party developers access to the ‌iPhone‌'s NFC hardware and Secure Element, preventing rival wallets from operating on equal terms and leaving banks and card issuers with no alternative but to participate in ‌Apple Pay‌ if they wished to offer mobile contactless payments to ‌iPhone‌ users.

The case heavily focuses on fees Apple reportedly charges issuing banks for ‌Apple Pay‌ transactions, commonly cited in industry reporting as approximately 0.15% of the transaction value in the UK. These fees are allegedly not consistent with industry norms and were only possible because Apple restricted competition on its platform. The suit further contends that banks passed the costs of those fees on to consumers through higher charges across a wide range of financial products, including current accounts, credit cards, savings accounts, and mortgages.

Around 98% of UK consumers hold accounts with banks that support ‌Apple Pay‌ and were therefore exposed to higher costs regardless of whether they personally used the service. On that basis, the claim seeks damages on a population-wide basis. The average payout per affected consumer would be relatively modest, estimated at roughly £26 to £35 if the claim were successful.

In a statement, Apple said that the lawsuit was "misguided and should be dismissed," adding:

Apple Pay is a seamless and secure way for users to make contactless payments, and one of many payment options available to consumers. Apple does not charge fees to consumers or merchants for using Apple Pay, and banks see meaningful benefits from offering Apple Pay to their customers - most notably fraud reduction.

Apple also emphasized changes to its platform that have occurred since the period covered by the claim. The company said it has recently expanded access to key technologies, including NFC and the Secure Element, allowing third-party developers to offer contactless payments within their own apps in the UK.

The claim has been lodged with the Competition Appeal Tribunal, which must determine whether the case can proceed as a collective action.
This article, "Apple Raised UK Banking Costs, Lawsuit Alleges" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Apple is fighting an antitrust penalty law in India that could require it to pay massive fines in its ongoing antitrust dispute with Tinder owner Match, reports Reuters.


Last year, India passed a law that allows the Competition Commission of India (CCI) to use global turnover when calculating penalties imposed on companies for abusing market dominance. Apple can be fined up to 10 percent, which would result in a penalty of around $38 billion. Apple said that using global turnover would result in a fine that's "manifestly arbitrary, unconstitutional, grossly disproportionate, and unjust."

Apple is asking India's Delhi High Court to declare the law illegal, suggesting that penalties should be based on the Indian revenue of the specific unit that violates antitrust law.

Apple has been fighting an antitrust lawsuit in India since 2022 against dating app Match and several Indian startups. The CCI released a pair of reports last year suggesting that Apple had engaged in "abusive conduct and practices" because it required developers to use its in-app purchase system. The CCI was forced to recall its investigative reports because they contained confidential information about Apple's business practices, resulting in a delay of several months. No final decision has been made, and a penalty has yet to be levied against Apple. Apple maintains that it has not done anything wrong, and argues that it has a very small share of the smartphone market in India because Android devices are much more popular.

Apple said in today's filing that the CCI used the new penalty law on November 10 in an unrelated case, fining a company for a violation that happened 10 years ago. Apple said it had "no choice but to bring this constitutional challenge now" to avoid having retrospective penalties applied against it, too.

Match has argued that a high fine based on global turnover would discourage companies from repeating antitrust violations. Apple's plea will be heard on December 3.
This article, "Apple Asks Indian Court to Block Antitrust Law Allowing $38 Billion Fine" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Apple today challenged the funding behind a $4 billion UK lawsuit during a tribunal hearing, raising new concerns about the iCloud class action as the company battles further antitrust scrutiny.


The case was initiated by consumer group Which on behalf of consumers, alleging that Apple's iCloud storage practices lock users into the service and cause them to pay more for cloud storage than they would have paid under more competitive conditions. Which is seeking compensation and an injunction to prevent Apple from continuing the alleged conduct.

The proposed class period runs from 1 October 2015 to the present, meaning that the claim targets both historic and ongoing conduct by Apple. The application also seeks injunctive relief aimed at preventing Apple from continuing the alleged abusive behavior in the future.

Apple told the Competition Appeal Tribunal that Which had not provided enough clarity about its third-party funder, Litigation Capital Management (LCM), which is paying for the legal action. LCM recently suffered a severe financial decline, losing 99% of its share value from its November 2024 level, leaving it worth about $16 million. Apple argued that this collapse raised questions about whether LCM could still support the lawsuit.

It also said that if it were allowed to pursue an appeal later in the process or if Which's funding is withdrawn, Apple could face a significant risk of not being able to recover its legal costs because LCM might not be able to pay them. The company added that both Apple and the proposed class representative should have been informed sooner and more clearly about LCM's situation.

The funding dispute emerges days after the tribunal refused Apple permission to appeal a separate ruling in a long-running developer class action, which found that Apple had abused its dominant position in iOS app distribution and in-app payment processing. That judgment concluded that Apple's App Store commission structure led to higher prices for consumers and restricted competition, leaving Apple facing potential damages of more than $1 billion.

The tribunal has not yet indicated when it will make a decision and the hearing continues.
This article, "Apple Questions Funding Behind UK iCloud Lawsuit" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Colombia's competition authority has opened a formal antitrust investigation into Apple, alleging that the company has abused its dominant position in the distribution of apps and purchases on iOS and iPadOS.


The Superintendence of Industry and Commerce (SIC) announced the probe yesterday (via MobileTime), stating that its Delegation for the Protection of Competition had reached a preliminary conclusion that Apple may have engaged in exclusionary practices that restrict free competition in the Colombian market.

The SIC case is focused on two primary concerns. First, the agency alleges that Apple contractually prevents developers from creating or operating alternative app stores on iPhones and iPads, ensuring that all software distribution takes place exclusively through the App Store. This restriction, regulators say, is designed to exclude potential competitors and preserve Apple's market dominance. The SIC noted that such clauses may amount to an abuse of a dominant position under Colombian law.

The second issue involves Apple's handling of in-app purchases. The SIC said developers are compelled to use Apple's proprietary In-App Purchase system, which applies commissions of 15% to 30% on each transaction. Apple also allegedly prohibits developers from informing users of cheaper alternatives outside the app, a practice known as anti-steering. In its announcement, the agency said these restrictions may result in "unjustified excessive costs" for Colombian consumers and create "artificial barriers" that deter new developers from entering the market.

The investigation will now proceed with evidence collection and analysis of Apple's conduct in Colombia. If the SIC determines that Apple has violated antitrust rules, the company could face sanctions of up to 10% of its turnover in the country, in addition to possible orders to amend its practices.

The Colombian probe reflects the growing international scrutiny of Apple's ‌App Store‌. Earlier this year, the European Commission fined Apple €500 million under the Digital Markets Act for preventing developers from directing consumers to alternative payment methods. In the United States, a federal court recently found Apple in contempt of a previous antitrust ruling and prohibited the company from collecting commission on certain web-based purchases. Regulators in Brazil, Japan, and South Korea have also pressed the company on similar issues.
This article, "Apple's App Store Under Investigation in Colombia" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

Elon Musk's xAI startup today filed a Texas lawsuit against Apple and OpenAI, accusing the two companies of conspiring to "ensure their continued dominance" in the AI market.


Earlier this month, Musk threatened to sue Apple and OpenAI because his apps X and Grok have not been featured in the App Store's "Must Have" apps section, and he has now followed through with that threat.

The lawsuit suggests that Apple was "blindsided by major innovations in AI," leading it to team up with OpenAI "in a desperate bid to protect its smartphone monopoly." xAI points to the integrated ChatGPT feature for Siri, because ‌Siri‌'s ability to reference a chatbot is exclusive to OpenAI as of now.

xAI claims that if iPhone users want to access a generative AI chatbot, "they have no choice but to use ChatGPT, even if they would prefer to use more innovative and imaginative products like xAI's Grok." xAI says that while ‌iPhone‌ users can download any chatbot app on their devices, it would not have the same level of "functionality, usability, and integration" as ChatGPT does with ‌Siri‌. There is also clear evidence that Apple is working to integrate other chatbots like Gemini into ‌Siri‌, including a statement from Google CEO Sundar Pichai about talks on that very subject.

The lawsuit states that Apple has been "deprioritizing" the apps of competing generative AI chatbots and apps like X in the ‌App Store‌ and delaying ‌App Store‌ updates, plus it complains that xAI has not been able to get data from billions of ‌iPhone‌ users for training Grok because it is not integrated with ‌Siri‌ like ChatGPT. xAI blames Apple and OpenAI for its failure to "attain more than a few percent of the generative AI chatbot market."

Despite their high rankings in the subject-matter-based "Top Apps" lists, neither the X app nor the Grok app appeared in the "Must-Have Apps" section of the App Store on August 24, 2025. Instead, as reflected in Figure 5 below, the first 11 listed apps in the "Must-Have Apps" section on August 24, 2025 do not include the X app or the Grok app. Neither the X app nor the Grok app appears further down on the list, either. This is also true of other generative AI chatbot and super app competitors.

xAI asks that the court put a stop to Apple and OpenAI's "anticompetitive scheme" and that the two companies be forced to pay damages.
This article, "Elon Musk Sues Apple and OpenAI Over Alleged App Store Conspiracy Against X and Grok" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums