Appeals Court Reverses 'Zero Commission' Ban on Apple, Says 27% Fee Is Too High

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has largely upheld a district court's decision finding Apple in civil contempt for violating an injunction in its long-running legal battle against Epic Games. While the appellate court affirmed that Apple's previous compliance attempts were insufficient, it reversed a specific mandate that would have prevented the company from charging any commission on external purchases.



In an opinion filed today, the appellate panel affirmed that Apple violated the original anti-steering injunction. The court agreed with the lower court's assessment that Apple's 27% commission on external purchases had a "prohibitive effect" that effectively barred developers from steering users to alternative payment methods. It also upheld findings that Apple's design restrictions—such as the requirement for "plain buttons" and the use of "scare screens"—were designed to defeat the injunction's purpose.


However, the panel reversed a portion of the district court's sanctions that completely prohibited Apple from charging any commission on linked-out purchases. The appeals court determined that a total ban on fees was not an appropriate civil contempt sanction because it denied Apple the opportunity to purge its contempt by implementing a reasonable fee.

The case has been remanded to the district court to determine a non-prohibitive commission rate. The opinion recommends that Apple should be permitted to charge a fee based on "necessary costs" for coordinating external links, which could include some compensation for intellectual property directly used in those transactions. However, the court specified that Apple should not receive a commission for security and privacy features it offers on external links.

Regarding link design, the court modified the lower court's order slightly. While Apple cannot force developers to make links invisible or difficult to use, the court ruled that Apple can restrict developers from making their buttons and calls to action more prominent than Apple's own interface elements.

The panel rejected Apple's arguments to vacate the injunction entirely based on recent Supreme Court and state court rulings. It also denied Apple's request to assign the case to a different district judge on remand.


This ruling follows a decision in April where District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in "willful violation" of the court's order. Apple had subsequently failed to pause those sanctions pending this appeal.

Each side will bear its own costs on appeal. Please download the iClarified app or follow iClarified on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, and RSS for more updates.