Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has issued a scathing 80-page ruling against Apple, officially holding the tech titan in civil contempt for its blatant defiance of court orders regarding the Epic Games v. Apple antitrust litigation. The court found that Apple deliberately engaged in anticompetitive behavior to protect its lucrative App Store revenue, even going so far as to present false testimony under oath.
While Apple initially avoided being labeled a monopolist, the court previously mandated that the company allow developers to include external links for payments to bypass Apple’s restrictive 30% commission. Apple’s response—imposing a 27% fee on external purchases and implementing “scare screens” to deter users—has now been legally dismantled as a bad-faith attempt to maintain its iron grip on iOS transactions.
A Calculated Effort to Evade Compliance
Judge Rogers did not mince words regarding Apple’s strategy, stating: “Apple’s response to the Injunction strains credulity. Apple, despite knowing its obligations, thwarted the Injunction’s goals and continued its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream.”
The court highlighted that Apple’s internal project, codenamed “Project Michigan,” was specifically designed to ensure that the court-ordered changes to App Store policies would remain financially non-viable for developers. When the Ninth Circuit issued a stay in 2021, Apple effectively ceased all genuine compliance efforts.
Leadership Under Fire: “Cook Chose Poorly”
The ruling reveals a critical breakdown in decision-making at the highest levels of Apple. While executive Phil Schiller advocated for complying with the court’s injunction, CEO Tim Cook ultimately sided with then-CFO Luca Maestri and the finance team to prioritize revenue preservation.
“Cook chose poorly,” the judge wrote. The court has referred the matter to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are warranted.
Perjury and Strategic Deception
One of the most damning aspects of the ruling is the accusation that Vice President of Finance, Alex Roman, provided false testimony. Roman claimed under oath that Apple did not determine its 27% fee structure until January 2024. However, internal business documents uncovered by the court proved that the core components of this plan were established as early as July 2023.
“Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, now obvious, lies,” the judge noted. “Thus, Apple will be held to have adopted the lies and misrepresentations to this Court.”
The “Scare Screen” Strategy
Apple’s implementation of “scare screens”—warning users about the supposed dangers of paying outside the App Store—was identified by the court as a deliberate attempt to sabotage the alternative payment systems it was ordered to allow.
Data presented in court showed the effectiveness of these tactics: out of approximately 136,000 developers, only 34 applied for the link entitlement program, and half of those didn’t even offer in-app purchases to begin with. The court concluded that Apple’s restrictive requirements were not justified by security or user experience, but were merely a tool to stifle competition.
Sanctions and Immediate Compliance
As a result of these findings, Apple faces significant financial sanctions, including the full cost of the special masters’ review and Epic Games’ attorney fees through May 2025. The judge was firm: “This is an injunction, not a negotiation.”
Effective immediately, Apple is prohibited from impeding a developer’s ability to communicate with users regarding alternative payment methods. The court’s message is unequivocal: Apple’s attempts to bypass the law have reached the end of the road, and further delays will not be tolerated.
Apple has stated it disagrees with the decision and intends to appeal, though it maintains it will comply with the court’s current order.