Apple appeals Epic Games ruling, asking for a stay on the requirement to make App Store changes; if Apple wins the stay, IAP changes could be delayed for years

CNBC 2021-10-11 Kif Leswing

Context & Ripple Effects

Apple’s appeal seeks to preserve the App Store’s existing in-app-payment rules while it challenges the underlying Epic Games decision. Related coverage later records that the appeals court granted the requested stay, keeping Apple’s IAP system as the sole iOS in-app payment route during the case.

The dispute did not end with the initial appeal: Apple and Epic both later pursued Supreme Court review of the 2021 decision, and Apple’s 2025 Ninth Circuit appeal over outside-purchase fees shows that implementation terms remained contested.

First-order effects

Apple avoids having to make the ordered App Store payment changes while its stay request is in force; developers and Epic remain subject to the existing IAP-only arrangement.
A successful stay delays developers’ ability to use the alternative payment options addressed by the ruling, preserving Apple’s current App Store payment flow during the appeal.

Second-order effects

Epic’s immediate leverage shifts from forcing App Store changes to defending the ruling through the appeals process, while developers must defer payment-routing plans tied to the order.
The later fight over commissions on purchases made outside the App Store extends the dispute from whether alternative links are permitted to what Apple may charge when transactions occur beyond its IAP system.

Third-order effects

The case establishes appellate stays and remedies as the practical gatekeepers for App Store payment-policy changes: a merits ruling does not itself determine when developers can alter checkout flows.
If this litigation pattern persists, platform-payment disputes will turn increasingly on the scope of remedy and fee restrictions, rather than solely on whether a platform must allow alternative payment options.

The trend: App Store payment governance is moving from a binary fight over alternative payments toward prolonged litigation over implementation, commissions, and the timing of enforcement.

Discussion

@florianederer Florian Ederer on x
What do you do when you're a dominant platform with market power and, in your own words, you win “a resounding victory” in a landmark antitrust lawsuit? You appeal because you can't let them take away your highly profitable anti-steering provisions. https://www.theverge.com/...
@ourielohayon Ouriel Ohayon on x
Don t bet on in app payment in crypto any time soon. Even if they lost on that particular point. Apple will fight to death so that this never happens https://www.cnbc.com/...
@drbarnard David Barnard on x
“Mr. Sweeney has touted an expansive view of the Court's injunction [...] To be clear, Apple disagrees with this broad interpretation of the injunction, but Epic's apparent endorsement of this view threatens Apple's ability to operate its platform.” https://storage.courtlistener.…
@timsweeneyepic Tim Sweeney on x
Apple filed a peel [Picture of Fortnite's Peely the banana]
@timsweeneyepic Tim Sweeney on x
But seriously guys buttons are really dangerous, as Apple explains. Some buttons are big and red. Some buttons launch nuclear missiles. If software is allowed to include buttons, they could maybe cause iPhones to explode and kill you or, worse, void your warranty. https://twitter…
@zhugeex Daniel Ahmad on x
Not a surprise to see this, even if Apple did win 9 of the 10 counts. We also told clients this was likely to happen The anti-steering aspect doesn't go as far as Epic wants, but companies like Paddle have shown how Apple would see a material negative impact with their method htt…
@markgurman Mark Gurman on x
Story now on @theterminal: Apple has filed for an appeal and a stay in the ruling in the trial with Epic Games, potentially delaying the need to make court-enforced App Store changes by at least a year.
@kifleswing Kif on x
“Developers ... have been resubmitting or replying to the App Review team to ask how the guidelines are changing ... Their communications, some of which point to news articles, show substantial confusion about the injunction's terms.”
@samifathi_ Sami Fathi on x
A smart move by Apple. Yes, Apple's risking getting a harsher ruling the 2nd time around, but the implications of the first ruling are far more complex than simply adding links to apps. There's an entire economic and security side to it that needs more time to be understood. http…
@stephentotilo Stephen Totilo on x
Apple appealing decision it largely won against Epic. Twists knife by saying an injunction blocking judge's requirement to let apps circumvent app store fees wouldn't hurt Epic...because it has legally blocked Epic from returning Fortnite to the app store https://www.axios.com/..…
@timsweeneyepic Tim Sweeney on x
@alithechill We don't know why Apple banned our entire account, blocking Epic from updating Fortnite for Mac. We don't know if Apple even knew they were doing that when they did it. It's a big mystery.
@alithechill @alithechill on x
@TimSweeneyEpic question mr sweeney, fortnite on MacOS always had the direct payment method. so why did apple ban you guys from mac anyway?
@keleftheriou Kosta Eleftheriou on x
Millions are already happily transacting outside the App Store for so-called “Reader” apps like Netflix. Apple now says extending this to other apps would “require substantial engineering and other changes to the App Store, to App Review and its tools” Disingenuous at best.
@keleftheriou Kosta Eleftheriou on x
All these words for Apple to tell us the obvious: that external payments won't be exactly like IAP. We get it, Apple. The whole point is to give users a choice. Those who want, can stick with IAP. https://twitter.com/...
@stevekovach Steve Kovach on x
Apple went through a lot of trouble to make the judge's ruling sound like a win. Now they're appealing. (Announced at 7pm on a Friday to boot.) https://twitter.com/...
@lapcatsoftware Jeff Johnson on x
@tapbot_paul Not sure Apple execs listen to advice. Honestly they should have cut Epic a special deal from the start like they have with other companies, and avoid this whole thing altogether. Hubris.
@tapbot_paul Paul Haddad on x
@lapcatsoftware The other side was appealing anyways, doesn't hurt to appeal and try to delay any forced changes.
@tapbot_paul Paul Haddad on x
@lapcatsoftware I am not enough of an internet lawyer to know if things actually work that way or not. I considered the same, but guessing if it was the case Apple's lawyers would probably have advised against it. Or who knows maybe they wanted to get more billable hours.
@lapcatsoftware Jeff Johnson on x
Both sides appealing is pretty weird. Though the judge did disagree with the market definition presented by both sides, so I guess it makes sense. https://twitter.com/...
@keleftheriou Kosta Eleftheriou on x
Tim Cook after the Epic ruling: “I think the ruling will be very good to try to put some of the discussions to rest on the App Store. [...]. I'm sort of looking forward to moving forward now” Also Tim Cook: https://twitter.com/...
@reckless Nilay Patel on x
The judge thinks Apple insulates itself from price competition and wrote an order designed to create it. That's what Apple is appealing here. It was always obvious that they would, because Apple does not want price competition.
@reckless Nilay Patel on x
Told you so https://www.theverge.com/... https://twitter.com/...
@joshua_sisco Josh Sisco on x
If Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers declines to put her ruling on hold, Apple can ask the same of the Ninth Circuit. If the Ninth Circuit says yes, its a good indication, but not a guarantee, that Apple could prevail on appeal
@nickstatt Nick Statt on x
If you're wondering why devs didn't rush to sidestep the App Store after the Epic ruling, it's bc Apple had a deadline to abide by the decision. Now it wants to delay that. It's also planning on appealing, so the fight goes on. @BenBrodyDC has the story. https://www.protocol.com/…
@stroughtonsmith Steve Troughton-Smith on x
Perhaps Apple doesn't think they won this after all 😝 https://twitter.com/...
@patrickmcgee_ Patrick McGee on x
*breaking* Apple had called the Apple-Epic verdict “a resounding victory.” Today it appealed. Asked for Court to postpone injunction that would open up App Store to rival payments On @FT
@kellen_browning Kellen Browning on x
Some Apple-Epic news — Apple just filed an appeal of the judge's Sept. ruling that ordered it to let developers steer customers outside the App Store. Apple also requested a stay of injunction to avoid having to make any changes until after appeal. https://www.nytimes.com/...

Chronicles