Epic Files Motion to Enforce Injunction

There's something missing from this post...

> There are sort of two tracks to this story: what Apple has said and done and what its legal rights are.

And, what about what Epic has said and done? They submitted their app through an account they created for the EU only, promised (via their CEO) it would be accepted by the end of the week, and that's only the latest! Please, be fair-minded!

Apple isn't operating in the way I hope they should, but neither is Epic. (Looking for my second bowl of popcorn for this fight....)

Epic are automatically not in good standing - they were found guilty of tricking children into purchasing things in Fortnight with the tactic of pretending an in-Epic-store purchase was a limited time offer when it wasn't - knowing all too well that children are impetuous and very easily lead into making rash decisions through FOMO.

They should be banned from iOS permanently.

So, yeah, Tim Sweeney is full of shit. We know this. And I figured their latest stunt was going nowhere.

But then it got weird. The judge issued this Show Cause order today:

The Court is in receipt of Epic Games, Inc.'s Motion to Enforce the Injunction. The Court thus issues this Order to Show Cause as to why the motion should not be granted. Briefing shall occur on the schedule listed below and shall include the legal authority upon which Apple contends that it can ignore this Court's order having not received a stay from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal even though its request was filed twelve days ago on May 7, 2025.

Obviously, Apple is fully capable of resolving this issue without further briefing or a hearing. However, if the parties do not file a joint notice that this issue is resolved, and this Court's intervention is required, the Apple official who is personally responsible for ensuring compliance shall personally appear at the hearing hereby set for Tuesday, May 27, 2025 at 9:00 a.m. in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, Oakland, California, Courtroom One.

What part of the order is Apple “ignor[ing]” by refusing to approve Fortnite? I get that she’s livid with them, and I think the argument that would move the needle is “the Fortnite build has links out and they’re denying it for that reason.” Sure, that would defy the latest injunction.

But that’s also not true—that isn’t the reason they’re denying it. And even if you don’t believe Apple is operating in good faith on this issue in general, it’s pretty clear they have a cognizable, reasonable, and believable basis for denying it based on Epic’s past conduct and Epic’s own words, when they stipulated that Apple is within its rights to close Epic’s developer account if Apple wasn’t found to be a monopoly or have violated antitrust laws, which they were not on either count (actually 9 of 10 counts).

Again, I know she’s fed up with them, but surely she can see that even if her current injunction gets upheld (“too close to call” IMO), she is the one that ruled Apple can terminate Epic’s DPLA in the first place, and reversing that now with seemingly no basis other than being mad at them is a slam dunk overturn on appeal. (And might help get the injunction overturned, too, if Apple can successfully paint it as retaliation.)

So bizarre.

@Dave “And, what about what Epic has said and done? They submitted their app through an account they created for the EU only, promised (via their CEO) it would be accepted by the end of the week”

Well, I don’t know where it’s written that the account was for the EU only. Apple did say they could use it for this submission. Sweeney said that Epic would submit the app by the end of the week, which it did. Obviously, no one outside Apple can ever promise when any app will be approved, so it wouldn’t make sense to believe him to be promising that unless it were already Pending Developer Release.

@Kevin It is strange. Maybe Apple had a basis for denying the account, but now that the Swedish account exists they can’t re-kill it without more bad behavior from Epic? And since Epic is now basically allowed to do what they broke the rules to do in the first place, what would that bad behavior be?

Per Tim Sweeney, posting on X dated April 30:

"We will return Fortnite to the US iOS App Store next week."

Not "submit", but "return". Also, Apple shut down their US developer account and after that Epic forced them to open up one for EU submissions.

I totally agree that Apple is not innocent here, but your comment about "two tracks to this story" really isn't balanced if it doesn't include the illegal and slanted things that Epic has done also. Sure, the account they used was not for EU only... but it feels like you have a bias here -- which is you right, and your blog. Truth is, neither party comes out clean in this.

@Dave This is one in a long series of posts I’ve written on Epic/Apple. The post itself already discusses the part of the latest news where Epic doesn’t come out clean: they seem to be trying to give the impression that Apple reneged a second time when Apple’s communication was actually ambiguous.

The “two tracks” is about the current situation, not about what happened in this past. The new stuff that Epic did is discussed throughout the post. Sweeney’s past comments about Fortnite returning were covered here. In context, I think it’s quite clear that “return” meant “submit.” What other interpretation makes any sense? It couldn’t already be Pending Developer Release the very day of the court order. Anyway, I don’t this really has anything to do with the issues in this post. Neither do Epic’s direct payment stunt and dark patterns settlement, all previously covered.

@Niall "They should be banned from iOS permanently."
+1
I wish all app stores would ban predatory "free to play with in app purchases" games. But the math is against it. Games are the largest income bringers on the app stores, with free to play games at the top. No profit driven company will move against that.

Maybe there could be an alternate app store that only had pay up front games, or a carefully curated list of games for children with no in-app purchases. But it won't come from Apple / Valve / Google / Nintendo / Sony / Epic.

And we all know how keen Apple are on alternate app stores.

@Kristoffer Apple already has this, it’s called Apple Arcade.

There's a key nuance here that's being often overlooked:

"I understand that the recent submission by Epic Sweden included a proposed Fortnite app for the U.S. storefront of the App Store as well as for alternative distribution in other geographies."

If they had submitted it with the app store only for EU, it would have been approved. But Sweeney is not trying to get Fortnite onto the App Store. He is trying to bait Apple. He knew what he was doing by including the alternate US store again. He knew nothing changed with that, and he knew that by conflating the two he could make Apple look like the bad guy once again.

And Apple keeps playing right into his hands.

And once again I hate that we have a discussion about the merits of software distribution methods around the end goal of restoring an IAP laden crapfest casino game for kids back on to the mediocre App Store.

@Bart “If they had submitted it with the app store only for EU, it would have been approved.”

Yes.

“But Sweeney is not trying to get Fortnite onto the App Store.”

What is your evidence for this or that he knew Apple would not accept it?

@Léo I agree and I think Apple Arcade is the perfect example of how Apple has ruined their own App Store. More people should be pointing it out. They actually had to create a "safe space" away from all the garbage because people have learned to keep their kids far away from it.

They'll never stop the predatory behavior as long as it's so profitable, but they can do the very Apple thing and eat into their own market for dual purposes. Now they get to have the bad behavior, point to a safe alternative that just so happens to pay them directly, and also have another pillar for their services bundle. Win/win/win.

@Michael I should rephrase. Of course he would take that outcome. But he wants it on his terms only. He wants to force Apple to do it exactly the way he wants it, and wants to publicly embarrass them until they do that.

My evidence is all the public statements he makes complaining about anything and everything Apple does, the recent ridiculous complaints about Find My come to mind.

And the fact that he submitted it in this way. He wants Fortnite on the App Store, but that's not his top priority. His top priority is forcing change on Apple, even if it's to his financial detriment. Many articles have pointed out lately that the math just doesn't work out for this to be financially good for his company, it has to be about something beyond money.

To be more succinct and clear, and as you pointed out, nobody had any evidence that it would be accepted or not, nobody ever does. Apple tells everyone the same thing in all circumstances, submit it and find out.

But he had to know that Apple didn't see the injunction the way he saw it, and he knew that if he just wanted to get the App approved, adding the alternative payments store back gave it an extremely high chance of rejection.

It seems to me following that logic that rejection in this case is what he was after, to get exactly what he got, which was more official commentary on the matter from the judge.

Wish I could edit posts.

To be more succinct and clear, and as you pointed out, nobody had any evidence that it would be accepted or not, nobody ever does. Apple tells everyone the same thing in all circumstances, submit it and find out.

But he had to know that Apple didn't see the injunction the way he saw it, and he knew that if he just wanted to get the App approved, adding the alternative payments store back gave it an extremely high chance of rejection.

It seems to me following that logic that rejection in this case is what he was after, to get exactly what he got, which was more official commentary on the matter from the judge.

@Bart I don’t know what Find My has to do with this; he just has multiple axes to grind. It seems clear to me that they want Fortnite in the US App Store with external payments. Which, surprisingly, the judge seems to be supporting. So, it seems like submitting the app got them closer to that goal. I have not seen anything to suggest they want special terms beyond the anti-steering stuff that’s in the injunction. It was totally up to Apple whether to accept the submission or create more of a scene and potential legal problems. Apple even invited them to submit it.

"It was totally up to Apple whether to accept the submission or create more of a scene and potential legal problems."

This is pretty much the entirety of my point. He just seems to be very good at getting them to react in a way that makes them look bad. I just think he knew they would react this way.

I guess I don't have any evidence for that, but it did go exactly the way I expected it to go so far.

I think in this specific case they just wanted explicit confirmation from that same judge just as much if not more as for the app itself to be approved. Because that then just gives them even more ammunition for the next round.

Apple has legal standing to not approve it, at least not yet, but he knew it wouldn't look good for them to play that card, and they played it.

@Bart and @Michael: "If they had submitted it with the app store only for EU, it would have been approved."

I'm not sure why you're assuming this.

@Bart I guess we’re in agreement then. I just don’t see anything shady about submitting the app following the injunction. It’s a win if Apple accepts it. And if Apple rejects it, it’s a PR win and sets up the next legal round. Why not give it a try?

@Jeff Yeah, I think you’re right that we can’t really know that. Maybe Apple would only approve it with notarization.

@Leo I'll give you that Arcade is a massive step in the right direction.

But it's more of a bandaid than a scam free Appstore, it's not even an Appstore.

@Michael I think that might be the only disconnect, I'm not actually saying it was shady. We do agree, that is exactly what he was doing. He's not being shady, he's just being bold to purposely annoy Apple.

@Jeff that's true. But with it, he had to know it would definitely NOT be approved.

Let's not forget that Fortnight are playing into Apple's hands as well.

The fact that they are at the forefront of the campaign for external app stores and yet they have history of unethical business practices targeting children is the exact reason Apple can legitimately say there's a need for scary warnings when being redirected to an external store.

@Niall I think this is what frustrates me and a lot of others, potentially including the judge in this case, about Apple.

Yes they can legitimately make that argument. But they keep waaay overplaying their hand to the point that people like the judge in this case have to keep taking them back and pointing out how ridiculous they're being.

If they would just choose on their own, just sometimes, just a little bit to be more reasonable, I think everyone would have more sympathy for them. But they keep on with these increasingly openly hypocritical arguments with increasingly thin justifications.

Sorry for Fortnight read Epic

@Bart yeah agreed they're making a rod for their own back they way things are panning-out.

@Bart and @Michael I’m thinking that Tim Sweeney wants to involve the App Review process in the judges criticism or ruling somehow. After the external payments ruling, Tim has been calling out the review times, the mixed messages, market effects on non-US App Store submissions, and even went on a hilarious wack-a-mole hunt where he kept calling out Fortnite clones on twitter and App Review would scurry to take them down hours later (proving simultaneously that the review process is a sham and that running to the press truly is the best incentive for App Review/Apple).

On the 27th, I bet Epic’s lawyers will call foul on the review process and its misuse as a tool to hinder competition. Sweeney, once again, perfectly teeing Apple up to stick their foot in their entitled mouth in front of a judge so fed up she might take a second look at App Review and make a more defined ruling.

It’s far fetched, but it’s a theory. Poke the bear with the App Review stick this time and see what comes out.

Who owns 40% of Epic Games? Amidst the most significant global realignment since World War II, it's worth considering whether the increasing pressure on Apple is entirely organic or part of a broader, strategic repositioning in the global tech landscape.

@AndyW Silly conspiracies aside, even if this is a … “strategic assault on American Capitalism”, this is still aligned with consumer benefit. The instigator or their supposed ulterior motives is of no importance.

LOL. Half the games in Apple’s own App Store are F2P dreck, built for the sole purpose of getting children to spend their parents’ money on endless in-game currency. If Epic is indeed a monster, they are not the only one here. (Same as Valve, for that matter.)

As for the lawsuit, Epic needs to utterly crush Apple in this battle. I already own a massive catalogue of cross-platform games on platforms like Steam and Epic, and there is no reason I should have to pay for them again just to play in Apple’s little walled garden. It is high time to shuck that oyster.

Looks like Apple decided to not piss off the judge even more.

https://www.macrumors.com/2025/05/20/fortnite-returns-to-u-s-app-store/

@Alexei Baboulevitch

> I already own a massive catalogue of cross-platform games on platforms like Steam and Epic, and there is no reason I should have to pay for them again just to play in Apple’s little walled garden. It is high time to shuck that oyster.

So do I — and thanks to Epic, I have a bazillion free Windows games.

Apple’s rules would absolutely let you play them on the iPhone/iPad , if the game’s developer themselves wanted to do so.. Perhaps the other platforms (XBox, Steam, Nintendo, etc.) have contract stipulations that prevent this, though.

The game on a different platform, or the game store itself, could generate an unlock key (a QR code would be easiest), which could then be entered on the iOS version of the game to unlock it on the iOS device.

I think that’s quite compatible with Apple’s rules?

For example: Fortnite on iOS used to allow you to buy gems and unlock consumes and stuff on Epic’s web store and then play using those things on the iPhone… — Epic just couldn’t link to that store from within the iOS app itself.

Apple wants their money when you start your purchase on the device AND consume on the device. If one of those was not true, devs could do what they want free of Apple’s fees.

Buy elsewhere, play/use on iPhone was totally fine and didn’t/doesn’t get a cut. Buy on iPhone but eat the pizza at home (and not using iPhone as a plate), then Apple doesn’t get a cut.

This will be interesting to see how this plays out in the court — I predict Apple will change their developer licensing contracts, though, to change that rule

Soon it might be “buy elsewhere, play on iPhone — sorry, you gotta A) pay up a percentage, or more likely B) pay some other fee (my bet is on Core Technology Fee of $0.50 per user per year)”. If A, that would mean audits of sales, then kicked out if someone cheats. Sounds expensive and annoying.

I predict a core technology fee. Simple, elegant, easy, and trackable by Apple.

@Michael

Maybe Apple had a basis for denying the account, but now that the Swedish account exists they can’t re-kill it without more bad behavior from Epic? And since Epic is now basically allowed to do what they broke the rules to do in the first place, what would that bad behavior be?

Even assuming that the judge would go along with what is literally a shell game* to get to the point where Epic has a subsidiary that did the submission here, there's nothing in any of her rulings that forces Apple to accept every app. (That would also be a slam dunk appeal on First Amendment grounds.) They just can't, under the current injunction, disallow certain things like linking out to the web for purchases. But as long as that's not the reason they're denying the app, as far as I can tell, they're free to deny it all day long.

They have to actually be doing something against the law or against a court order (here, seemingly, the specific injunction she issued, but maybe not since it obviously doesn't say they have to allow Fortnite back in) for it to be actionable by Epic. She clearly sees something we don't, or is pissed enough she's not acting rationally, given the order she issued.

* Re the shell game remark, she would lose a massive amount of credibility if she were to support the idea that Epic and Epic Sweden are not functionally the same entity, or that Tim Sweeney's grubby pawprints are not all over both.

> Apple wants their money when you start your purchase on the device AND consume on the device. If one of those was not true, devs could do what they want free of Apple’s fees.

Patently false. Apple spent a lot of the 2020s attempting to force services that never offered in app purchases to do so. Also it doesn’t matter where I consume a Kindle or Audible book, if I bought it in the app, Apple wanted their fee.

Apple blocked Steam from letting you purchase a windows game from Steam using their iOS app without giving Apple their cut. This is purely harmful to the user experience. Steam has zero reason to offer the service other than some small number of people might like to buy a game in the app. If it incurs a charge, there is no reason to do it.

"So, yeah, Tim Sweeney is full of shit. We know this. "

Don't include all of us in your statement thanks.

Sweeney is literally fighting for everyone and has lost hundreds of millions in this fight but there as still people around to criticize him despite Apple being proven wrong in court. The fun part is that they benefit from EPIC's fight against Apple for free and can now provide alternative payment at no fee in the US.

The human comedy I guess.

@Alexei @Someone Apple specifically says you can’t use unlock keys or QR codes but that you can do multi-platform sharing, so I guess it needs to be done with an account login or something.

@Kevin I’m not saying she doesn’t see the shell game. I’m saying that the order allows Apple to ban the Swedish account, but they didn’t. I don’t recall anything in the DPLA saying that Apple can keep banning an app for bad behavior; it talks about punishing you at the account level.

@Michael I am not that sure that Apple can ban the Swedish account that easily. That would mean applying an US ruling upon an European company which is probably illegal. So while the US judge wouldn't see an issue, the EC would and probably fine Apple and tell them to allow it.

IMHO EPIC played very well on that one and Apple knows it. Otherwise they wouldn't have allowed Fortnite back. EPIC Sweden is a European company that Apple can't ban. From there, they can submit Apps to the US market and following the US ruling which allows external linking, EPIC is following both the law AND Apple's EULA.

@Damien Yes, that’s what I’m saying. The US would let Apple ban the Swedish account, but the EC wouldn’t. Given that the account is not banned, Epic can submit the app, and the US judge says Apple can’t block it for linking out.

"Sweeney is literally fighting for everyone"

FTC Sends Refund Payments to Consumers Impacted by Epic Games’ Unlawful Billing Practices

@Damien

Sweeney is literally fighting for everyone

Don't include all of us in your statement thanks.

Sweeney has been in this since day 1 for himself and himself only. Do you not remember when he asked Apple for a special deal for just Epic? Then, during the trial, he reaffirmed under oath that he would have taken a special deal just for Epic. Also, what @Niall said, which I think gets lost in a lot of this discussion.

The fact that the charlatan's values sometimes happen to align with others does not mean the charlatan has an actual care in the world if his actions benefits others. And just because the charlatan uses that coincidental alignment of values as puffery to make himself look more trustworthy does not mean it is so. Even in the current circumstances, he has shown himself to willing to be vague to the point of bending the truth (or outright lying) when the actual truth doesn't fit his narrative.

Just to be totally clear, I am not saying Apple is perfect or innocent of all wrongdoing. But just because they're doing something wrong doesn't mean Tim Sweeney is, by extension, not.

@Michael

I don’t recall anything in the DPLA saying that Apple can keep banning an app for bad behavior; it talks about punishing you at the account level.

Not having read the DPLA itself, surely they didn't write it such that as long as an app doesn't violate the rules, they automatically have to accept it? That's what I'm saying -- as far as I'm aware, they haven't painted themselves into a corner of being required to accept ANY app.

I think where this ultimately rests is Epic could make a plausible-sounding argument that Apple is retaliating against them for trying to enforce the injunction. I don't think that's ultimately got the legal legs that Epic (and seemingly YGR?) think it does... Just because the EU required them to allow Epic to open a second account doesn't mean it isn't the same company, and Apple would still be rejecting for prior bad behavior. But it apparently spooked Apple enough that they let Fortnite return. IDK man, IDK. *gestures wildly at everything*

Agree. Sweeney is fighting for Sweeney. There’s a lot of money at stake for him and his company if he succeeds. Trying to get Epic App Store onto closed devices like iOS, Switch, Playstation is trying to grab the gold ring. And with the profits they make now, why not try, right?

>> Apple wants their money when you start your purchase on the device AND consume on the device. If one of those was not true, devs could do what they want free of Apple’s fees.

> Patently false. Apple spent a lot of the 2020s attempting to force services that never offered in app purchases to do so. Also it doesn’t matter where I consume a Kindle or Audible book, if I bought it in the app, Apple wanted their fee.

I think it’s pretty fair to assume most people will read the book in the app in which they just bought it… I guess perhaps you bought an awful book and you regret your purchase? Is that the case we’re thinking about? Does that apply to games you buy but never actually play… 0% fee for those as well?

> Apple blocked Steam from letting you purchase a windows game from Steam using their iOS app without giving Apple their cut. This is purely harmful to the user experience. Steam has zero reason to offer the service other than some small number of people might like to buy a game in the app. If it incurs a charge, there is no reason to do it.

So yes, that’s the case you’re talking about.

I’ve got the Steam app on my iPhone right now. I’m pretty sure I can buy games for my account right now because I’m looking at the ‘enter credit card’ screen in the checkout flow as I type this. You should check it out.

^^^ @ gildarts

@ Michael Tsai

I stand corrected re: QR codes to unlock features, though I was thinking more about a “scan QR code in an app to sign into my existing account”, which to be honest, I’ve not really seen.

https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#:~:text=If%20you%20want%20to%20unlock,cryptocurrencies%20and%20cryptocurrency%20wallets%2C%20etc.

Because I could imagine how this could be used if that rule didn’t exist — for example: a magazine page that says ‘scan this QR code to make purchases via the account on the web via a hidden browser window or http GET’.

It’s hard to write rules to enforce a principal. Programmers are too clever :)