A U.S. federal judge has ordered Apple to appear in court and justify its refusal to process Epic Games’ Fortnite app submission. The order, issued on May 19, 2025, by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, came after Epic accused Apple of ignoring a court injunction that requires the company to allow external payment links and refrain from blocking compliant apps.
Judge Rogers made it clear Apple cannot delay compliance under the pretext of awaiting the Ninth Circuit Court’s decision on a stay request. She emphasized that Apple had not received a stay, despite filing for one on May 7. If Apple does not resolve the issue and fails to file a joint notice confirming compliance, a named Apple official must appear in court on May 27 and answer questions directly.
According to the court order, any opposition brief from Apple must be submitted by May 21, and reply briefs are due by May 23.
Epic Calls Out Apple for Defiance
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney publicly accused Apple of stalling. In a May 15 post on X, he wrote, “Apple didn’t accept or reject our Fortnite submission. They simply said they were going to ignore it until after the 9th Circuit Court rules on their stay request.” He called on Apple CEO Tim Cook to let Fortnite return to the App Store, referencing the prolonged legal dispute that began in 2020.
Sweeney later posted that Apple’s 15–30% commission on web transactions is now “as non-existent in the United States as in Europe,” pointing to the court’s ruling and the EU’s Digital Markets Act. He marked the timeline of the legal fight as “4 years 4 months 17 days.”
The official Fortnite X account confirmed on May 16 that Apple blocked the game’s return to both the U.S. App Store and the Epic Games Store for iOS in the European Union, leaving Fortnite unavailable worldwide on iOS.
Background: Court Already Found Apple in Violation
This hearing follows an April 30 ruling in which Judge Rogers found Apple in civil contempt for violating the court’s permanent injunction. The court struck down Apple’s external purchase fees, placement restrictions, and “scare screens,” declaring them unlawful. Apple was ordered to fully remove such policies and comply with the injunction immediately.
As reported in the court documents, Apple now faces both civil sanctions and potential criminal contempt charges if it continues to resist. Judge Rogers made it clear: Apple’s full compliance is not optional.
Apple’s 21st century behavior is as reprehensible as Msft’s in the 1990s.
Pathetic.
when your organization is headed by a person who resorts to bribery to get his way in the face of a capricious megalomaniacal dictator wannabe, then sides with the financial hawks in his company instead of doing the right thing, deserves everything they get.