Glonce

Australian court orders Apple to allow alternative app stores in Epic case

policyThe Glonce editorsHacker News🔥78Glonce rating78Impact70Novelty62Relevance75Surprise45Players85Credibility92

The Federal Court of Australia has published its declarations and orders on relief in Epic Games Inc v Apple Inc (No 2) [2026] FCA 1552. The liability reasons are the earlier decision, Epic Games Inc v Apple Inc [2025] FCA 900. This text sets out what Apple must now do.

The court declares that since 6 November 2017 Apple, the first respondent, has contravened s 46(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth). It found that Apple had a substantial degree of power in both the iOS app distribution services market and the iOS in-app payment solutions market at all relevant times. On distribution, the court declares that Apple's conduct had the purpose, and had or was likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition. That conduct included requiring developers to distribute iOS apps only through the App Store, prohibiting distribution by any other means (save for certain trivial exceptions), hindering developers from building for other channels, hindering users from downloading or updating apps and alternative app stores from websites or other stores, and imposing OS-level restrictions that stop apps running unless they came from the App Store or were pre-installed by Apple.

The court ties this to the non-negotiable Developer Program Licence Agreement (DPLA) and the App Store Review Guidelines. Terms it lists include: apps may be distributed only if Apple selects them in its sole discretion; interpreted code may not create a store or storefront; apps may use only Apple-provided APIs and no private APIs; developers must not let users access content bought on the developer's own website or another channel unless it is also available as an in-app purchase; developers must appoint Apple's first and second respondents as agent for marketing and delivery to users in Australia; and developers are prohibited from issuing any refunds to users of their iOS apps.

On payments, the court declares that Apple's conduct had or was likely to have the effect (the declaration states no purpose finding for this limb) of substantially lessening competition in the iOS in-app payment solutions market. The conduct was requiring developers to use Apple's In-App Purchase (IAP) for all in-app purchases of digital content, prohibiting alternative payment methods inside the app, and prohibiting developers from directing users from within apps to alternative payment methods. Related terms bar apps and their metadata from carrying buttons, external links or other calls to action that point to purchasing mechanisms other than IAP.

The court also declares that Apple enforced these terms against the applicants by refusing to let the first applicant offer Epic Direct Pay for in-app purchases, removing Fortnite from the App Store on 13 August 2020, and terminating the first applicant's Team ID '84 developer account on 28 August 2020.

The orders themselves begin with Fortnite. On written application by the applicants, Apple must do all things necessary, including procuring acts of any related corporation, to permit Fortnite and other iOS apps developed by Epic (not including an alternative app store) to be admitted or readmitted to the App Store. That is subject to Epic complying with the DPLA and Review Guidelines so far as they are consistent with the orders. Apple must process Epic's developer agreements and app updates under its usual business practices and give Epic the tools and APIs, including software development kits, on substantially the same terms as other App Store developers.

Order 3 is the broader one. Subject to orders 12 and 13, Apple must ensure that iOS users can discover, obtain and update apps, including alternative app stores, through channels other than the App Store, including direct download and alternative app stores. The condition is that the apps have undergone an automated scan for genuine security and/or privacy reasons and been notarised by Apple or a suitably qualified third party. Developers must be able to distribute and update apps through those Alternative Distribution Channels, with access to the tools and APIs needed to build and distribute apps, to build apps that can display and install other apps, and for users to discover and install apps, on substantially the same terms as App Store developers get.

Order 4 forbids Apple from prohibiting, preventing or hindering this, including by imposing a fee or condition. It names three examples: blocking access to those tools and APIs, imposing restrictions that stop iOS apps running unless downloaded from the App Store or pre-installed by Apple, and making it a term of App Store access that a developer will not offer its apps through an Alternative Distribution Channel. Order 5(a) says Apple must not impose any fees or conditions for access to or use of Alternative Distribution Channels by developers or users. Order 5(b) bars fees or conditions on the necessary tools and APIs that would have the purpose, effect or likely effect of preventing, hindering or deterring distribution through those channels, including fees higher or conditions more onerous than those applied to developers of apps not monetised through in-app purchases. The visible text breaks off in the middle of this order.

Scope matters. In orders 2 to 11, App Store means the Australian storefront and User means a user with an Australian Apple Account. Developers are defined as developers of native iOS apps admitted to the Apple Developer Program, wherever in the world they are incorporated or domiciled.

Key facts

  • The Federal Court of Australia declares that since 6 November 2017 Apple contravened s 46(1) of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) in the iOS app distribution and in-app payment markets.
  • Order 3 requires Apple, subject to orders 12 and 13, to let users discover, obtain and update apps, including alternative app stores, via direct download and alternative stores, if the apps are automatically scanned and notarised by Apple or a suitably qualified third party.
  • Orders 4 and 5 bar Apple from hindering those channels and from imposing fees or conditions for access to or use of Alternative Distribution Channels.
  • On written application, Apple must permit Fortnite and other Epic iOS apps (not an alternative app store) to be admitted or readmitted to the App Store; Fortnite was removed on 13 August 2020.
  • Orders 2 to 11 apply to the Australian App Store storefront and users with an Australian Apple Account.

Why it matters

This is the relief stage of a case in which a court has already found liability, and it turns a competition finding into concrete obligations. The declarations say Apple misused substantial market power in two markets: iOS app distribution and iOS in-app payments. The orders then require Apple to open iOS to alternative app stores and direct downloads, and bar it from charging fees or setting conditions for access to those channels. The court also declares that Apple's rule against directing users to other payment methods and its ban on developer refunds were part of the conduct.

Who it affects

Apple is directly bound, and so are iOS developers in the Apple Developer Program, who are defined as covering developers wherever they are incorporated or domiciled. Users with an Australian Apple Account are the users covered by orders 2 to 11. Epic Games, as applicant, gets a specific route to return Fortnite and other Epic iOS apps to the Australian App Store on written application. Anyone wanting to run an alternative app store on iOS is covered by the orders' references to tools and APIs for building apps that display, download, install and update other apps.

How to use it

This is a court judgment, not a product, so there is nothing to switch on. For developers, the text shows what the court requires. Apps distributed through Alternative Distribution Channels must have undergone an automated scan for genuine security and/or privacy reasons and been notarised by Apple or a suitably qualified third party. Apple must provide the tools and APIs on substantially the same terms as for App Store developers. Epic must make a written application to Apple to have Fortnite readmitted. Developers should read orders 12 and 13, which the visible text does not show but which qualify orders 3 to 5.

How solid is it

The source is the court's own published text, so the declarations and orders quoted here are firsthand. The text available for this retelling is truncated after order 5(b). The visible text does not state the date the orders were made, any commencement date or compliance deadline for Apple, the name of the judge, or any penalty or damages amount. The reasons for relief are not in the visible text; only the declarations and orders are.

Risks and caveats

Orders 5 (remainder) to 13, including any payment-related orders and the exceptions in orders 12 and 13, are not visible, so the full remedy cannot be described. Orders 3, 4 and 5 are expressly subject to orders 12 and 13. Orders 2 to 11 are confined to the Australian storefront and Australian Apple Accounts. The visible text does not say whether Apple has appealed or how Apple responded, and it does not state any commission rate or fee level for Apple. It also does not use the word sideloading; it speaks of Alternative Distribution Channels (direct download and alternative app stores).

“impose any fees or conditions for access to, or use of, Alternative Distribution Channels by iOS app developers or iOS users;”

— Federal Court of Australia, Epic Games Inc v Apple Inc (No 2) [2026] FCA 1552, order 5(a), which is subject to orders 12 and 13