Apple Faces Legal Heat: Judge Refers Tech Giant for Criminal Probe Over App Store Violations

A federal judge in California has ruled that Apple violated a longstanding court order requiring the tech giant to promote fairer competition in its App Store ecosystem. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers determined that Apple failed to comply with a previous injunction from an antitrust case filed by Epic Games, the developer of the popular video game "Fortnite." Her decision, laid out in an 80-page opinion, states that Apple deliberately disregarded the court's instructions to loosen its control over app downloads and alternative payment methods.

The judge emphasized that Apple’s actions were not only non-compliant but also appeared to be deliberate. “This is an injunction, not a negotiation,” Gonzalez Rogers said, warning that Apple’s persistent interference with competition would not be tolerated. The judge's firm stance highlighted her belief that Apple had no intention of respecting the spirit of the ruling, marking a significant escalation in the legal battle.

As a result of Apple’s conduct, Judge Gonzalez Rogers announced she would refer the company to federal prosecutors for a potential criminal contempt investigation. This could bring serious legal consequences for Apple, a company already under global scrutiny over its App Store practices. Neither Apple nor Epic Games immediately issued public comments following the judge’s decision.

Epic Games originally brought the lawsuit accusing Apple of suppressing competition and imposing excessive fees on in-app purchases. In 2021, Judge Gonzalez Rogers sided partially with Epic, finding Apple in violation of California competition laws and ordering it to permit developers to guide users to alternative payment options outside of the App Store.

Although Apple appealed the injunction, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear the case in 2023, effectively upholding the original ruling. However, Epic returned to court in March 2024, arguing that Apple had introduced new policies—such as a 27% fee for external purchases and warnings discouraging users from leaving the App Store—that made it practically impossible for developers to use alternative payment systems.

Apple, in its defense, denied any wrongdoing and insisted it had made “extensive efforts” to comply with the court’s orders while preserving its business model and protecting consumers. The company claimed that its modifications were made in good faith and aligned with its broader obligations to users and developers.

Despite Apple’s assertions, Judge Gonzalez Rogers expressed skepticism, suggesting the changes served no purpose other than to maintain Apple's monopoly and suppress competition. Her referral of Apple for criminal contempt marks a dramatic turn in the case and may signal increasing judicial impatience with Big Tech’s resistance to regulatory compliance.