They tried that. The judge, correctly, went "uh the fuck you will".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_Games_v._Apple

> While Apple implemented App Store policies to allow developers to link to alternative payment options, the policies still required the developer to provide a 27% revenue share back to Apple, and heavily restricted how they could be shown in apps. Epic filed complaints that these changes violated the ruling, and in April 2025 Rogers found for Epic that Apple had willfully violated her injunction, placing further restrictions on Apple including banning them from collecting revenue shares from non-Apple payment methods or imposing any restrictions on links to such alternative payment options. Though Apple is appealing this latest ruling, they approved the return of Fortnite with its third-party payment system to the App Store in May 2025.

▲

anonymous908213 16 hours ago | parent [-]

That judge's ruling was essentially overturned last month on appeal.

> Even though Apple was no longer prohibiting linked-out purchases, the district court held that this new approach effectively prohibited linked-out purchases, and it violated the spirit of the injunction. The district court then enjoined Apple from imposing any commission or fee on linked-out purchases. However, the Ninth Circuit panel found that the complete ban was overbroad and punitive. Apple should be permitted to charge a commission based on costs that are genuinely and reasonably necessary for its coordination of external links and linked-out purchases, but not more.

"Genuinely and reasonably necessary", not being defined, will naturally be taken by Apple's malicious compliance department to mean "26%", I'm sure, and we'll get to enjoy a continued round of show trials in court with no meaningful effect for years to come.

▲

fc417fc802 7 hours ago | parent [-]

I wouldn't describe that as "overturned" but rather "clarified a detail or two". They still aren't allowed to set arbitrary fees but if they can show receipts then they can demand reimbursement.

The idea seems to be that the injunction shouldn't be able to force Apple to operate a given account at an overall loss. They can bill you for resources of theirs that you actually use.

	▲	anonymous908213 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		However, given we've seen how flagrantly they violated the first injunction, it's easy to believe they will take the liberty to interpret this one as maliciously as possible as well. Sure, if the fees are too high they'll end up back in court to attempt to prove costs, and maybe something will happen years later after bouncing around in appeals and violating new injunctions, or maybe it won't.