• Apple updates its App Store policies, letting US developers offer payment links.
• Spotify has already adopted the change.

Apple has revised its App Store payment policies following a recent federal court ruling that found the company in contempt of a previous injunction. US developers can now add direct links to third-party payment systems in their iOS apps, allowing users to complete purchases outside Apple’s ecosystem – an option that was previously restricted.

The move follows a decision by US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who concluded on April 30 that Apple had not complied with the spirit of a 2021 injunction issued in a related antitrust case brought by Epic Games. That earlier order had required Apple to give developers more flexibility in directing users to alternative payment options. Instead, the court said, Apple introduced new measures – like a 27% commission on external payments and warning screens – that continued to deter developers from steering consumers away from Apple’s in-app purchase system.

Apple says it is complying with the updated ruling but also made clear its intent to challenge the decision. On May 6, the company formally filed a notice of appeal with the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals. In its appeal, Apple disputes the finding that it acted in contempt and argues that its implementation efforts were consistent with the court’s previous instructions.

Judge Gonzalez Rogers, however, saw it differently. In her latest ruling, she accused Apple of deliberately undermining the court’s injunction and referred the company – along with one of its executives – to federal prosecutors for a potential criminal contempt investigation. She cited delays, misleading statements in testimony, and actions that, in her words, aimed to “maintain a revenue stream worth billions in direct defiance” of the court’s directive.

The legal case originated in 2020 when Epic Games sued Apple, arguing that the company’s control over app distribution and in-app payment systems on iOS constituted anticompetitive behaviour. While the court didn’t define Apple as a monopoly, it did order the company to relax its rules and allow developers to communicate with users about alternative ways to pay.

Apple’s initial response to the injunction included new terms that required developers to pay a 27% commission on any purchases made via external links and implemented user interface warnings – sometimes described as “scare screens” – to caution users about leaving the App Store. The tactics, Judge Gonzalez Rogers said, ran counter to the intent of promoting meaningful competition.

The fallout from the ruling has already reached the App Store. Spotify became one of the first prominent companies to take advantage of the policy shift. On May 3, it released an update to its iOS app for US users, allowing them to view subscription pricing and follow external links to make payments directly on the company’s website. In a post on X, Spotify described the update as a positive step for developers, artists, and consumers seeking transparency and choice.

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney welcomed the development and congratulated Spotify for exercising its “court-mandated right” to engage in digital commerce without Apple’s interference. He framed it as a milestone in the broader effort to level the playing field for app developers.

Observers have drawn parallels between the US court’s ruling and the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), which went into effect last year. The DMA requires dominant tech platforms to open their ecosystems to more competition, including by allowing developers to use alternative billing systems. Sweeney noted that Apple’s “15 – 30% junk fees” now face legal challenges in both the US and Europe.

Meanwhile, industry analysts are watching Apple’s next steps closely. Carolina Milanesi, principal analyst at Creative Strategies, noted that while Apple’s Services division – which includes the App Store – remains a strong revenue driver, the company may be recalibrating its approach to balance regulatory pressures with long-term business goals. Services now account for over 25% of Apple’s total revenue.

Milanesi added that the App Store continues to be an attractive platform for small and midsize developers that may not have the resources to manage direct payments or infrastructure outside Apple’s tools. For these developers, Apple’s integrated system still provides global reach and ease of use.

Yet, Apple’s revised policy is not without limitations. While the company has eliminated the 27% commission and adjusted its guidelines, enforcement mechanisms are still being developed. As noted in reports by Reuters and The Verge, it’s unclear how Apple will monitor and handle compliance with the new rules across various app categories.

The timing of this legal dispute is particularly sensitive for Apple, as the company prepares to hold its annual Worldwide Developers Conference (WWDC) in June. Developer relations are expected to be a key focus at the event, especially as Apple seeks to maintain trust among its app-making community amid growing scrutiny from courts and regulators.

Apple has not publicly commented on the criminal referral or the judge’s characterisation of its internal practices. The company’s earlier statements emphasise its disagreement with the contempt finding, though it acknowledges that it will execute the court-ordered changes while pursuing legal recourse.

The broader implications of this case could ripple throughout the tech industry, particularly among other large platforms that face similar regulatory challenges. If the appeal fails, Apple may be forced to make other concessions, perhaps altering the way digital products are sold and monetised on iOS.

As the legal proceedings continue, developers now have greater flexibility to test new business models that were previously blocked by Apple’s restrictions. Whether this leads to long-term industry change will depend on how effectively these new options are adopted – and how strictly Apple enforces the new rules without creating additional roadblocks.

For the time being, the legal battle highlights the growing global momentum to lessen the grip of dominant tech platforms and create more competitive digital marketplaces. With both the US court system and international regulators involved, Apple’s long-standing App Store practices are under more scrutiny than ever before.