An Australian court has ordered Apple to allow competing app stores, direct app downloads and alternative payment options on iPhones in Australia, one of the most significant legal blows yet to the company’s tightly controlled App Store model.
Justice Jonathan Beach of the Federal Court of Australia issued the orders on Wednesday in a long-running case brought by Fortnite maker Epic Games. The ruling requires Apple to make the changes for users with Australian Apple accounts by noon Melbourne time on March 1, 2027.
Apple said it would appeal.
“We will request a stay and appeal the outcome to seek a resolution that respects our intellectual property,” the company said in a statement to Reuters. Apple added that it aims to protect “the safe, secure experience that consumers and developers expect from the App Store.”
What Apple must change
Under the orders, iPhone users in Australia must be able to find, download, install and update apps through rival app marketplaces and websites, without Apple charging for access or obstructing their use.
Developers must be given the tools they need to distribute apps outside the App Store on substantially the same terms as App Store developers, and Apple cannot penalize them for using competing stores or payment services.
The court also ordered Apple to allow developers to offer alternative payment methods and to link to other ways to pay, including from within apps distributed through the App Store. Developers will be allowed to offer lower prices through those alternative payment options.
Apple will be barred from charging fees on purchases made through alternative payment services in apps distributed outside its store. For apps in the App Store, fees on such purchases will be capped at what Apple would charge for physical goods or services, plus reasonable added costs.
Apple also cannot ban rival app stores or third-party apps from being preinstalled on iPhones, although it will not be required to distribute competing app stores through its own App Store.
Apple keeps some protections
Apple won on several points. The court rejected Epic’s request for worldwide orders, limiting the changes to Australia. It also allowed Apple to keep requiring automated security and privacy scans and notarization for apps distributed outside the App Store, provided those requirements do not create disproportionate barriers.
Apple will also be able to remove or disable externally installed apps if they contain harmful content, pose genuine security risks or must be removed for legal reasons.
The judge rejected Apple’s request for the orders to expire after five years, but said Apple could seek changes if circumstances materially shift.
Apple may apply between Feb. 1 and Feb. 15, 2027, for an extension to May 3, 2027, if it can provide evidence that more time is needed. During the case, an Apple engineering director estimated the work would take several months, while an expert for Epic estimated it could be done in less than six months.
Beach said the March 1 deadline was “sufficient for Apple working efficiently to deal with the necessary technical and commercial issues.”
Fortnite returns
The ruling also cleared the way for Fortnite to return to Apple’s App Store in Australia. Unlike the broader changes, the order requiring Apple to readmit Epic’s apps takes effect immediately upon Epic’s written request.
Epic said on X that Fortnite was returning to the Australian App Store, calling the ruling “great news for developers worldwide and iOS users in Australia who will benefit from an open mobile app ecosystem.”
Fortnite was removed from the App Store worldwide in 2020 after Epic introduced its own payment system to avoid Apple’s commission, triggering legal battles on several continents. The game returned to the App Store in most of the world in May, but Australia had been the only country excluded while Epic sought further orders on Apple’s payment terms.
A sharp rebuke of Apple
In his 235-page decision, Beach was critical of Apple’s conduct. He found that Apple held “a substantial degree of power” in the markets for iOS app distribution and in-app payments.
He described Apple’s 2020 actions against Epic, which included removing Fortnite and terminating Epic’s developer account, as “a paradigm example of Apple’s enforcement of its restrictive terms.”
The judge also examined how Apple has responded to similar rules in other countries. In South Korea and the Netherlands, where Apple was forced to allow alternative payments, it charged commissions of 26% or 27% on third-party payments, compared with its standard 30%. Beach said Apple “set the commission rates to block any genuine prospect of competition.”
He also dismissed Apple’s arguments based on international treaties, writing that “Apple’s tendentious treaty entreaties go nowhere.”
Apple was ordered to pay 85% of Epic’s legal costs for the original trial.
How the case unfolded
The orders follow an August 2025 ruling in which Beach found that Apple had misused its market power in breach of Australia’s Competition and Consumer Act by restricting how apps could be distributed and paid for on iPhones. The court then held further hearings to determine what changes Apple should be required to make.
Epic brought a related case against Google over its Android app store practices, part of a broader global campaign by the game developer against what it describes as anticompetitive restrictions imposed by the two companies that dominate mobile app distribution.
Part of a global push
The Australian decision adds to mounting pressure on Apple’s App Store business around the world.
In the European Union, the Digital Markets Act has already forced Apple to allow alternative app stores for users in the bloc. Japan has introduced similar rules, and regulators in other countries have examined Apple’s practices.
In the United States, a federal judge found Apple in contempt in Epic’s case over restrictions on steering users to cheaper payment options outside the App Store, a ruling an appeals court upheld in December 2025.
The App Store is a major source of revenue for Apple, generating billions of dollars each year through commissions of up to 30% on digital purchases. Apple has long argued that its control over app distribution protects users’ security and privacy and that its fees reflect the value of the platform it built.
Critics, including developers and regulators, argue that those restrictions stifle competition, raise prices for consumers and give Apple too much control over the mobile economy.
Apple’s appeal will now move through the Australian court system. Beach said that if Apple appeals, the parties will need to discuss whether the orders should be paused and on what terms.
If the orders stand, Australia will become one of a small but growing number of countries where iPhone users can download apps from outside Apple’s App Store.
