In the ongoing saga of tech giants clashing over app store dominance, Apple Inc. has sharply criticized a recent Australian court ruling in its legal battle with Epic Games Inc., labeling the decision as “harmful” to consumers and developers alike. The Federal Court of Australia’s judgment, spanning over 900 pages and published on September 15, 2025, found that Apple and Alphabet Inc.’s Google had misused their market power by restricting alternative app distribution and in-app payment methods on iOS and Android devices since 2017. This verdict, detailed in a report from 9to5Mac, marks a significant escalation in Epic’s global campaign against what it calls anticompetitive practices.

Epic, the maker of Fortnite, initiated the Australian lawsuit in 2020, mirroring its U.S. case where it challenged Apple’s 30% commission on in-app purchases and the exclusivity of the App Store. The Australian ruling partially favors Epic, declaring that Apple’s control over iOS app distribution constitutes an abuse of monopoly power, potentially paving the way for third-party app stores and alternative payment systems down under. Apple, in response, argued in court filings that the decision overreaches and could undermine user privacy and security, echoing sentiments from its U.S. appeals.

The Ripple Effects on Global Antitrust Scrutiny This Australian outcome arrives amid heightened international pressure on Apple, with similar probes in the European Union under the Digital Markets Act and ongoing U.S. litigation. Industry analysts note that the ruling could influence regulators worldwide, forcing Apple to reconsider its walled-garden approach. For instance, a post on X from the Epic Games Newsroom highlighted the potential return of Fortnite to iOS in Australia, celebrating the decision as a blow to app store monopolies. Yet, Apple’s swift appeal, as reported by MacRumors, underscores its determination to protect what it views as essential ecosystem safeguards.

The court’s findings delve into economic harms, estimating billions in overcharges to Australian consumers and developers due to restricted competition. Epic’s legal team presented evidence of Apple’s policies stifling innovation, such as barring sideloading and alternative payment processors, which the judge deemed anticompetitive under Australia’s Competition and Consumer Act.

Apple’s Counterarguments and Strategic Implications In a detailed 42-page rebuttal filed shortly after the ruling’s publication, Apple contended that the judgment is “indefensible” and fails to account for the benefits of its integrated system, including robust malware protection. Sources from heise online indicate Apple’s fear that opening iOS could lead to a fragmented market, harming smaller developers who rely on the App Store’s visibility. Meanwhile, Google’s parallel loss in the case, as covered by Information Age, suggests broader ramifications for Android’s Play Store, potentially allowing Epic to distribute its own store without commissions.

Epic’s victory isn’t absolute; the court dismissed some claims, and penalties or remedies are yet to be determined in a separate hearing. Tim Sweeney, Epic’s CEO, has publicly hailed the ruling on X as a “landmark” step toward fairer app economies, but Apple warns of increased risks like scams and data breaches if enforced.

Potential Outcomes and Industry Shifts Looking ahead, this decision could compel Apple to implement changes in Australia, such as permitting external payment links, similar to concessions made in the U.S. after a 2021 ruling. However, Apple’s history of aggressive appeals—evident in its ongoing U.S. Supreme Court denials, as noted in posts on X from tech accounts like TechLinked—suggests a protracted fight. For industry insiders, the case highlights tensions between innovation and control in mobile ecosystems, with Epic positioning itself as a champion for developers against tech behemoths.

As the appeal process unfolds, expected to stretch into 2026, stakeholders from app developers to antitrust lawyers are watching closely. The ruling’s emphasis on consumer harm, backed by economic analyses in the judgment, may embolden similar lawsuits elsewhere, challenging Apple’s trillion-dollar valuation tied to its services revenue. Ultimately, this Australian chapter reinforces Epic’s narrative that app store policies are not just business models but barriers to competition, setting the stage for what could be transformative reforms in digital marketplaces.