In a bold escalation of its long-running legal battle with Epic Games, Apple Inc. has fired back at a federal court’s ruling that it deems “indefensible,” filing a detailed 42-page brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The document, submitted late Friday, sharply criticizes both Epic’s claims and the district court’s interpretation of antitrust laws, arguing that the imposed injunction unfairly punishes Apple for practices that protect consumers and maintain platform security.

The core dispute stems from a 2021 decision by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who ruled that Apple’s App Store policies violated California’s unfair competition law by prohibiting developers from steering users to alternative payment methods outside the iOS ecosystem. Apple contends this ruling overreaches, potentially exposing users to fraud and undermining the curated experience that has defined its marketplace.

Challenging the Injunction’s Scope

In the filing, Apple asserts that the court’s anti-steering injunction is punitive and unconstitutional, as it extends beyond the original Fortnite-related conflict to affect all developers globally. The company argues that such broad remedies violate due process and First Amendment protections, likening the mandate to forced speech that compels Apple to promote competitors’ payment systems.

Drawing on precedents from prior antitrust cases, Apple’s lawyers emphasize that the ruling ignores evidence of pro-competitive benefits, such as enhanced user privacy and reduced transaction risks. According to details outlined in a report by 9to5Mac, Apple minces no words, labeling the decision as flawed and urging the appeals court to reverse it entirely or, at minimum, vacate the injunction and reassign the case to a new judge.

Broader Implications for Tech Regulation

This move comes amid growing scrutiny of Big Tech’s market power, with regulators worldwide eyeing similar app store practices. Apple warns that upholding the ruling could dismantle the economic model sustaining its $85 billion services business, forcing a reevaluation of the 30% commission on in-app purchases—a fee Epic has long decried as monopolistic.

Industry observers note that Apple’s strategy echoes its past defenses, including countersuits against Epic for breaching contract terms when Fortnite bypassed App Store payments in 2020. As reported by MacRumors, Apple specifically argues the changes demanded by the court go too far, infringing on its right to control its platform without government overreach.

Allies and Ongoing Battles

Support for Apple’s position has emerged from tech groups, with organizations like TechNet and the Association of Corporate Counsel filing amicus briefs defending attorney-client privilege limits challenged in the case. These filings, as covered by 9to5Mac, highlight concerns that the ruling erodes legal protections essential for corporate counsel in high-stakes litigation.

Meanwhile, Epic has pushed for stricter enforcement, accusing Apple of noncompliance with the injunction. The appeals court’s decision could reshape app distribution not just for iOS but for platforms like Google’s Android, where similar suits have yielded mixed results, including a partial win for Epic in Australia as noted in Reuters.

Potential Outcomes and Industry Ripple Effects

Legal experts predict a protracted appeals process, possibly reaching the Supreme Court, given the case’s implications for digital marketplaces. Apple seeks to limit the injunction’s scope to U.S. developers or Fortnite specifically, arguing global application exceeds judicial authority.

For industry insiders, this filing underscores Apple’s determination to preserve its walled-garden approach, even as pressures mount from the EU’s Digital Markets Act and U.S. antitrust probes. If successful, it could embolden other tech giants; if not, it might accelerate a shift toward open payment systems, fundamentally altering how apps monetize and compete. As the Ninth Circuit deliberates, the tech world watches closely, aware that the outcome will influence billions in revenue and the future of mobile innovation.