Fortnite vs. Apple: Judge Orders App Store Review

Fortnite’s App Store Reinstatement Faces Further Scrutiny

A U.S. federal judge is now requesting that Apple either authorize the submission of Fortnite to the U.S. App Store or present a legal justification for its continued refusal to do so.

Judge Demands Explanation from Apple

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of the U.S. District Court has acknowledged receipt of Epic Games’ most recent motion. This motion specifically requests Apple’s approval for Fortnite’s distribution through the App Store.

Expressing clear dissatisfaction, the judge is asking Apple to demonstrate the “legal authority” supporting its decision to disregard the court’s prior order. Gonzalez Rogers also indicated that a further court appearance may be necessary if the matter remains unresolved.

The judge emphasized that Apple possesses the capability to resolve this issue without additional legal filings or a hearing. She further requested that Apple identify the company official responsible for ensuring adherence to the court’s directives.

Potential for Contempt Charges

The request for the responsible official’s name suggests Judge Gonzalez Rogers is prepared to consider charges of contempt of court should Apple fail to comply with the injunction.

This development follows the judge’s previous criticism of Apple, where she accused the company of attempting to circumvent court orders and providing false testimony.

Epic Resubmission and Apple’s Response

After successfully securing the right to include links to external payment systems within its application, Epic Games resubmitted Fortnite to the U.S. App Store. However, Apple informed Epic Games that it would postpone any action on the submission pending a ruling from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding Apple’s request for a partial stay of the injunction.

In essence, Apple stated it was not obligated to approve the app until the complete legal process surrounding its appeal had concluded.

Epic Games subsequently filed a motion on Friday to compel the court to enforce the existing injunction, given Apple’s stance.

Background of the Legal Battle

This latest legal challenge is a continuation of a prolonged dispute concerning Apple’s App Store policies. These policies previously prohibited app developers from linking to external payment options without incurring a commission paid to Apple.

Initially, Apple complied with the court’s decision by allowing U.S. developers to apply for exemptions to its App Store rules. However, Apple continued to collect a 27% commission on transactions made through these alternative methods, a reduction from the standard 30%. Furthermore, developers were required to display warning messages to consumers before they were redirected to external purchase platforms.

Judge Finds Apple in Violation

Judge Gonzalez Rogers determined that Apple was in “willful violation” of the court’s injunction regarding anticompetitive pricing and commissions. This ruling appeared to pave the way for Fortnite’s return to the App Store.

However, Apple delayed acting on Fortnite’s submission for a week, neither approving nor rejecting the game’s publication, while its legal team prepared a response.

Potential Global Implications

The outcome of this situation could have significant repercussions for Apple, potentially inspiring similar legal challenges or regulatory actions in other international markets.

Antitrust Ruling and Developer Wins

While Apple was deemed not to be a monopolist in Epic’s original antitrust lawsuit, Epic Games achieved a partial victory when Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled that iPhone users should have access to alternative payment options if developers choose to utilize their own websites for in-app purchases.

Following this decision, Apple updated its App Store policies in the U.S. Several applications, including Spotify, Amazon Kindle, and Patreon, promptly released updated versions to leverage the new functionality.

Epic Games has declined to provide a statement. Apple has not yet responded to requests for comment.