Apple Under Fire: Judge Refers Tech Giant for Criminal Probe Over App Store Antitrust Violations

In a striking legal development, Apple Inc. has been found in violation of a U.S. court order aimed at increasing competition in its App Store, one of its most profitable platforms. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, based in Oakland, California, ruled that Apple had failed to follow a previously imposed injunction. The original order stemmed from an antitrust lawsuit initiated by Epic Games, the creator of the popular video game “Fortnite.”

Judge Gonzalez Rogers criticized Apple’s actions, stating in her 80-page ruling that the tech giant’s ongoing efforts to suppress competition could not be tolerated. She emphasized that a court injunction is mandatory and not open to negotiation or interpretation. “There are no do-overs once a party willfully disregards a court order,” the judge wrote, stressing the seriousness of Apple’s non-compliance.

As a result of the ruling, Judge Gonzalez Rogers announced that she would refer Apple to federal prosecutors for a criminal contempt investigation. This referral could escalate Apple’s legal troubles and potentially lead to significant penalties. At the time of the announcement, neither Apple nor Epic Games responded to media requests for comment.

The lawsuit at the heart of the issue began when Epic Games accused Apple of monopolizing app downloads and charging developers excessive commissions for in-app transactions. In 2021, Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple had breached California competition laws and ordered the company to allow developers to inform users about alternative payment methods outside the App Store.

Despite that ruling, Apple sought to overturn the injunction but was unsuccessful, with the U.S. Supreme Court declining to hear the case. Epic Games returned to court in March 2024, claiming Apple was openly violating the injunction. A key concern was Apple’s introduction of a 27% fee on developers whose customers made purchases outside of the App Store, a move Epic said undermined the court’s order.

Furthermore, Apple was accused of attempting to dissuade users from using non-Apple payment methods by displaying warning messages about potential risks. Epic argued that Apple’s updated policies were deliberately designed to be impractical and unappealing, rendering alternative payment options ineffective in practice. The judge agreed, suggesting that Apple’s new system served no purpose other than to restrict competition.

Apple has maintained that it acted appropriately. In a court filing dated March 7, the company stated that it made “extensive efforts” to comply with the court’s mandate, while still maintaining the core elements of its business model and protecting users. However, Gonzalez Rogers voiced skepticism over Apple’s intentions, indicating that the company’s recent changes appeared to be crafted primarily to continue limiting competition.