A US appeals court grants a stay in the Epic v. Apple ruling, letting Apple keep its IAP system as the sole source of iOS in-app payments as the case proceeds
Apple can maintain its App Store payment monopoly while the case proceeds — An appeals court has paused one of the most consequential parts …
The VergeRussell Brandom
Context & Ripple Effects
Apple had already appealed the trial ruling and sought to postpone required App Store changes; the court has now granted the stay Apple requested. The immediate significance is procedural but commercial: Apple retains its existing IAP-only checkout while the merits case continues.
The later related coverage shows that payment-rule remedies remained subject to repeated appellate pauses, including a 90-day stay on external payment links. This ruling is an early instance of litigation timing preserving the platform's operating model.
First-order effects
Apple continues to require iOS in-app transactions to use IAP during the appeal, preserving its control over the checkout path.
Epic and other iOS developers cannot yet implement the court-ordered App Store changes that would have allowed them to steer users to other payment options.
Second-order effects
Alternative payment providers and developers lose an immediate route to compete for iOS in-app transaction volume, while Apple avoids having to redesign App Store payment flows mid-appeal.
The stay makes the duration of appeals commercially consequential: developers' payment and pricing plans remain tied to Apple's rules rather than the underlying trial ruling.
Third-order effects
Repeated pauses around payment remedies would make enforcement timing as important as the legal standard itself in challenges to platform gatekeepers.
The case points toward a longer contest over whether app-store operators can retain checkout control while courts define the limits of Apple's payment rules.
The trend: App-store regulation is increasingly being decided not only by merits rulings, but by whether appeals courts allow payment remedies to take effect before final review.
Hey look, that's exactly what I said would happen. You are now likely looking at a total win for either Apple (most likely) or Epic (full overturn). The “partial” approach of the injunction alone is unlikely (but not impossible) to ever be the new status quo. https://twitter.com/…
Apple risks becoming the Donald Trump of big tech with this ruling, illustrating how there's one law for the poor and weak, and another for the rich and powerful. Rich companies/people simple appeal, appeal, appeal, and appeal, ad nauseum. https://www.theverge.com/...
@greengart @asymco Most products run 2-3 years ahead. So iPad -> iPad 2 is probably the analogy for headset -> headset 2 in terms of ramp up and product goals?
Apple gets injunction stayed as predicted AND deals major blow to #Epic-#Spotify-#Tinder Coalition for @AppFairness: U.S. appeals court denies motion to file amicus brief http://www.fosspatents.com/... #appstore #appdevelopers #epicvapple #epicgames #matchgroup #fortnite #9thcir …
“Apple can maintain its App Store payment monopoly while the case proceeds” 🤣 That's one way to put this. But not how either court put it. https://twitter.com/...
While not the hot take you might expect from me, I do think this is justice prevailing, under current law anyway. Apple clearly needs to make big changes to the App Store, and regulators around the world have begun forcing change, but this injunction wasn't merited. https://twitt…
Apple: “Our concern is that these changes would have created new privacy and security risks, and disrupted the user experience customers love about the App Store. We want to thank the court for granting this stay while the appeals process continues.” https://twitter.com/...
Apple still has to allow developers to tell users that they can pay outside the app, but it got the stay it wanted from a higher court on in-app links and buttons. So this is going to take awhile. https://t.co/d8SE8E4mXD
but overall I am happy to see that the absurdity of developers having to pretend a world of money outside the app store doesn't exist and writing arcane references to it will hopefully ending.
Judge must have agreed with Apple's assessment it would have been “exceedingly complicated” to make this change in the short-term. Seems fair overall, as you don't want to start with unclear guidance for developers. Would have been fun to see the alleged chaos though... https://t…
“Apple has begun working on a second-generation augmented-reality headset, even before it launches or even acknowledges work on a first-generation product.” Well, obviously.