Court Rejects Apple's Emergency Motion to Pause App Store Rule Changes

Apple will not be able to walk back the anti-steering App Store changes it was ordered to implement in May while the legal process plays out, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said today. That means Epic Games, Spotify, Patreon, and others will be able to continue to direct customers to web purchase options that are available outside of the App Store, and Apple won't be able to collect fees on those web purchases.

iOS App Store General Feature Black
Shortly after being forced to update its U.S. ‌App Store‌ rules to support external purchase links, Apple filed an emergency motion with the appeals court. Apple wanted to be able to hold off on implementing the new rules until it was able to mount a full appeal, but the appeals court denied the motion.

To be granted a stay, Apple needed to prove that its appeal is likely to succeed and that it would be irreparably injured without a stay, while the court also needed to consider whether the stay would injure other parties and where public interest lies. The court said that after "reviewing the relevant factors" it has not been persuaded that a stay is appropriate.

Apple argued that the original order was "extraordinary" and forced it to "give away free access" to Apple products and services, including intellectual property. Apple said that it should be able to collect commission on external purchase links and control the way those links look, both of which are currently prohibited. Apple claimed that keeping the ‌App Store‌ rules as is will cost it "hundreds of millions to billions" of dollars annually.

The ‌App Store‌ changes that Apple implemented in the U.S. are a result of the ongoing Apple vs. ‌Epic Games‌ legal battle that started in 2020. The judge overseeing the case originally ordered Apple to tweak the ‌App Store‌ rules to allow developers to direct customers to web purchase options instead of using in-app purchases. Apple complied after a multi-year appeals process, but levied 12 to 27 percent fees on developers who opted to do so and implemented strict rules around link styling.

‌Epic Games‌ protested Apple's implementation, and the judge sided with Epic. In a scathing ruling, Apple was ordered to immediately change its U.S. ‌App Store‌ rules. As of now, Apple is not allowed to charge any fee on purchases that consumers make outside of an app, nor is it allowed to restrict the language or design that developers use for buttons or links to web purchase options.

Popular Stories

iPhone 17 Pro Dark Blue and Orange

iPhone 17 Release Date, Pre-Orders, and What to Expect

Thursday August 28, 2025 4:08 am PDT by
An iPhone 17 announcement is a dead cert for September 2025 – Apple has already sent out invites for an "Awe dropping" event on Tuesday, September 9 at the Apple Park campus in Cupertino, California. The timing follows Apple's trend of introducing new iPhone models annually in the fall. At the event, Apple is expected to unveil its new-generation iPhone 17, an all-new ultra-thin iPhone 17...
xiaomi apple ad india

Apple and Samsung Push Back Against Xiaomi's Bold India Ads

Friday August 29, 2025 4:54 am PDT by
Apple and Samsung have reportedly issued cease-and-desist notices to Xiaomi in India for an ad campaign that directly compares the rivals' devices to Xiaomi's products. The two companies have threatened the Chinese vendor with legal action, calling the ads "disparaging." Ads have appeared in local print media and on social media that take pot shots at the competitors' premium offerings. One...
iPhone 17 Pro Iridescent Feature 2

iPhone 17 Pro Clear Case Leak Reveals Three Key Changes

Sunday August 31, 2025 1:26 pm PDT by
Apple is expected to unveil the iPhone 17 series on Tuesday, September 9, and last-minute rumors about the devices continue to surface. The latest info comes from a leaker known as Majin Bu, who has shared alleged images of Apple's Clear Case for the iPhone 17 Pro and Pro Max, or at least replicas. Image Credit: @MajinBuOfficial The images show three alleged changes compared to Apple's iP...
maxresdefault

The MacRumors Show: iPhone 17's 'Awe Dropping' Accessories

Friday August 29, 2025 8:12 am PDT by
Following the announcement of Apple's upcoming "Awe dropping" event, on this week's episode of The MacRumors Show we talk through all of the new accessories rumored to debut alongside the iPhone 17 lineup. Subscribe to The MacRumors Show YouTube channel for more videos We take a closer look at Apple's invite for "Awe dropping;" the design could hint at the iPhone 17's new thermal system with ...

Top Rated Comments

sw1tcher Avatar
13 weeks ago

Apple argued that the original order was "extraordinary" and forced it to "give away free access" to Apple products and services, including intellectual property. Apple said that it should be able to collect commission on external purchase links and control the way those links look, both of which are currently prohibited. Apple claimed that keeping the App Store rules as is will cost it "hundreds of millions to billions" of dollars annually.
What a load of ?

Let's take Spotify as an example. Before Apple allowed external purchase links, you could only subscribe to Spotify through their website. Apple collected $0.00 and Apple was perfectly okay with this arrangement. No complaints from Apple about having to give away their products and services either.

Now that there are external purchase links on the Spotify app, Apple says not only will this cost them millions of dollars annually but it's also forcing Apple to give away their products and services too?

I didn't know external purchase links were capable of inflicting this much harm.
Score: 53 Votes (Like | Disagree)
AppliedMicro Avatar
13 weeks ago

Apple argued that the original order was "extraordinary" and forced it to "give away free access" to Apple products and services, including intellectual property
Prohibitions or on communicating with customers are not intellectual property.
They are junk fees.

Also, providing access to the Apple App Store is not free. Epic, Netflix, Amazon and Spotify - they all pay their yearly membership. If that - and the hardware sales - are not enough, Apple is free to price their App Store in a fair, non-discriminatory and not-anticompetitive way.


Imagine still advocating for typing in your credit card numbers into unknown vendors
I've made countless credit card transactions online just fine.
With vendors I trust. Why would I use an app from someone I don't trust anyway?
Score: 46 Votes (Like | Disagree)
User 6502 Avatar
13 weeks ago
Of course they did. Apple is rotten and they are defending the indefensible
Score: 28 Votes (Like | Disagree)
AppliedMicro Avatar
13 weeks ago

Epic is a company that does nothing but addict kids to a game to get the credit card of the parents
...and Apple want's to keep that "addicting" business to themselves. So what?

Besides, V-Bucks do not require a credit card - they can be purchases as prepaid gift cards.
Score: 25 Votes (Like | Disagree)
sw1tcher Avatar
13 weeks ago

yea, now Epic and the likes get to load apps into the store and use Apple's infrastructure for $99/year - that is plain wrong.
Amazon, Starbucks, Walmart, McDonald's, Uber, Netflix, et al all put their apps on Apple's App Store and use Apple's infrastructure for $99/yr. No complaints from Apple.
Score: 25 Votes (Like | Disagree)
AppliedMicro Avatar
13 weeks ago

Let's take Spotify as an example. Before Apple allowed external purchase links, you could only subscribe to Spotify through their website. Apple collected $0.00 and Apple was perfectly okay with this. No complaints about Apple having to give away their products and services either.
Also, let's take Uber as example.

Apple provides them access to the App Store access and (afaik) their push notification service. And they're perfectly ok with charging only the yearly developer membership. And with allowing Uber to ask for credit card details in-app, conducting in-app transactions without Apple's involvement or commission.
Score: 24 Votes (Like | Disagree)