Australia's Federal Court orders Apple to open iOS to rival app stores and external payments

Australia’s Federal Court ordered Apple on 22 October 2026 to let iOS users with an Australian Apple Account install apps from rival app stores and developers’ websites, and to allow payment methods other than Apple’s own, from noon Melbourne time on 1 March 2027. Justice Jonathan Beach issued the relief ruling in Epic Games Inc v Apple Inc (No 2) [2026] FCA 1552 (file NSD 1236 of 2020); the certification at the end of the document counts 1,104 numbered paragraphs. He also handed down a separate ruling the same day in the parallel Apple and Google class actions ([2026] FCA 1553).

Key points

• The declaration holds that since 6 November 2017 Apple had a substantial degree of power in the iOS app distribution services market and the iOS in-app payment solutions market, and breached section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 through non-negotiable developer terms and App Store Review Guidelines whose purpose and effect was to substantially lessen competition.
• Order 12 starts orders 3 to 11 at noon Melbourne time on 1 March 2027; order 13 gives Apple one window, 1 to 15 February 2027, to apply with all supporting evidence for a court-approved extension to noon on 3 May 2027.
• Order 2 sits outside that timetable: on a written application from Epic, Apple must readmit Fortnite and Epic’s other iOS apps (not an alternative app store) to the Australian storefront and treat them like any other app.

Background

The conduct behind the case dates to August 2020. The declaration (1(f)) records that Apple refused to let Epic offer its own Epic Direct Pay inside apps, removed Fortnite on 13 August 2020, and terminated Epic’s Team ID ‘84 developer account on 28 August 2020; the judgment does not record when the Australian proceeding was filed. Liability was decided in Epic Games Inc v Apple Inc [2025] FCA 900; this ruling settles what remedy follows. 9to5Mac refers to that decision as “a ruling last year”; since no coverage quotes a date from the liability judgment itself, this entry cites the case number only.

Two related threads closed or moved alongside it. Epic’s case against Google was dismissed on 6 March 2026, with paragraph 5 of the judgment recording three orders that day: the proceeding dismissed, earlier costs orders vacated, no order as to costs. The Apple and Google class actions were dealt with in that same separate ruling ([2026] FCA 1553); according to MLex, Beach formalised competition-law findings there but declined to find that any particular developer or user had been overcharged, leaving compensation to a later stage.

Epic’s own situation has shifted too. We covered Epic’s vibe-coded launcher rewrite on 15 October, when Fortnite’s Linux release still depended on an anti-cheat rebuild. Store rules on the Android side are loosening as well: from 13 October Google Play began hosting personal vibe-coded apps, though that route leads to a private library rather than the distribution opening this judgment demands.

What the orders require

Fifteen orders numbered 2 to 16, with the mechanical detail in orders 3 to 11. Order 3 requires Apple to ensure users can discover, obtain and update apps through channels other than the App Store, including direct downloads and alternative app stores, provided those apps pass an automated scan for genuine security and privacy reasons and are notarised by Apple or a suitably qualified third party; the tools and APIs needed must be offered on substantially the same terms as for App Store distribution.

Order 4 bars Apple from hindering those channels through fees or conditions, and 4(b) forbids restrictions that stop apps running on a device unless they came from the App Store or were pre-installed. Order 5 lists eleven prohibitions: charging for access to alternative channels; setting API fees higher, or conditions more onerous, than those applied to developers of free or ad-monetised apps on the App Store, where that deters alternative-channel distribution; stopping developers from offering lower prices or better discounts to users who buy through an alternative channel; banning pre-installed third-party apps and stores; and forcing developers to appoint a particular agent for Australian marketing. Clause 5(h) narrows when Apple may remove or disable an externally installed app to three cases: illicit or harmful content, malware posing a genuine security risk, or a requirement under the Online Safety Act 2021. Clause 5(i) forbids friction disproportionate to the security risk.

Order 6 removes the two core restraints: developers can no longer be required to use Apple’s in-app purchase for digital content, and anti-steering rules are gone. Order 7 lets Apple impose security requirements on non-IAP payments only where they are necessary and proportionate, after written notice explaining the nature and cause of the risk. Order 9 sets out what Apple may not demand: price parity, transaction reporting or audit rights over external payments, a parallel IAP option, and any fee on purchases made through alternative distribution channels. Order 11 bars rejection, discrimination or retaliation against developers for using those channels or steering users to outside payment.

The scope is deliberately narrow. Paragraph 14 of the reasons limits the injunctions to the Australian storefront and users with an Australian Apple Account, while developers may be members of the Apple Developer Program anywhere in the world and alternative payment providers are equally unrestricted; paragraph 337 calls that the appropriate balance. Epic’s bid for worldwide relief failed: paragraphs 261 to 271 work through international comity, cite US courts declining to issue global orders, and note that the EU and Japan have legislated for themselves.

Apple kept two things. Paragraph 9 concludes that banning rival app stores from inside Apple’s own App Store does not itself contravene the Act, and order 5(e) stops Apple from dictating which apps an alternative store carries. Automated scanning and notarisation survive: paragraph 532 adopts Apple’s distinction between “direct downloading” and “sideloading” and writes notarisation into order 3.

The fee cap

Order 9(e) is the most consequential economic term. Where an app distributed through the App Store takes payment for digital content outside IAP, Apple’s charge is capped at what it charges for in-app purchases of physical goods or services made by the same route, plus any additional economic costs genuinely and reasonably incurred for the digital transaction that the physical-goods transaction does not create.

Paragraph 851 explains the benchmark: the physical-goods reference is currently nil, so in practice the cap equals demonstrable extra cost. That formula answers a pattern the judgment documents. Paragraph 445 found Apple’s 26% commission in South Korea and 27% in the Netherlands for developers using third-party payments were “uneconomic, providing a choice that was illusory” — a contractual tie swapped for an economic one. Paragraph 866 breaks down the EU structure: a 17% default commission, 3% more for using Apple’s payment processing, and a €0.50 core technology fee per first annual install, which paragraph 867 found designed to dissuade take-up.

The enforcement record is in the same document. Paragraph 949 repeats an earlier finding that Apple terminated more than 2,000 developer accounts since 2017 for failing to use IAP. Paragraph 501 calls the Fortnite removal and the account termination “a paradigm example” of Apple enforcing its restrictive terms.

No sunset clause

Apple asked for a five-year limit, arguing that these markets will evolve beyond recognition (paragraphs 1092 to 1093). The court refused. Paragraph 1095 is blunt: any fixed term is arbitrary, and if Apple’s logic holds, why not three years or ten? The evidence could not identify a defensible number.

Paragraph 1096 points to section 80(3), which already lets a court rescind or vary an injunction. Paragraph 1097 says that if market changes or technical advances justify it, Apple can prove that on the evidence available at the time. Paragraph 1098 allocates the burden: Apple is better placed than Epic to know such a change and its significance, so it should carry the onus.

One question stays open for the parties. Paragraph 17 records that if there is an appeal, the court still needs to discuss whether any stay is necessary, on what terms and for how long. No stay had been granted when this entry was checked; Apple’s position remains a statement to Reuters.

What others say

MLex picks out the two edges most easily missed: the injunctions have no expiry date, and while participating developers and payment providers can be based anywhere, the protected users are Australian Apple Accounts only. It also reports the class-action outcome, where no specific overcharge was found.

Capital Brief covers the local fallout. It estimates Epic’s 85% costs award “could top $2 million” — that is the outlet’s estimate, not a figure in the judgment. Joel Phibbs, a principal at Phi Finney McDonald, one of the firms acting for Australian developers, told Capital Brief the result was “a win for Australian app developers and consumers who will continue to pursue claims for compensation in the stage 2 proceeding”. The same piece dates the decision to “Wednesday”; the judgment says 22 October 2026, a Thursday, and MLex also writes Thursday, so this entry follows the judgment.

AppleInsider frames the orders as DMA-like in scope but more specific, written to leave Apple less room to manoeuvre, and notes that Apple has appealed at every stage so far. 9to5Mac supplies the most-quoted number, a 235-page decision; that page count appears only in media reports, while the judgment certifies 1,104 numbered paragraphs, which is what this entry uses. IT之家’s Chinese write-up flags one detail correctly: the Epic readmission order is not subject to the March 2027 date and takes effect on written application.

Fortnite’s return date is reported inconsistently. 9to5Mac quotes Epic saying it would be back “tomorrow”, i.e. 23 October, and Capital Brief wrote “from Friday”, which is the same day; other outlets filed copy on 22 October describing the return as already underway. This entry could not check the Australian App Store listing, so it records the claims rather than a confirmed date. Apple’s response is reported the same way everywhere, as a statement to Reuters: it will request a stay and appeal, seeking a resolution that respects its intellectual property and protects the secure experience users and developers expect.

Our take

For anyone shipping an iOS app, the part worth copying into a 2027 revenue model is order 9(e). The DMA forced Apple to open up, and Apple responded with a core technology fee plus a 17% and 3% structure that made the opening uneconomic; South Korea and the Netherlands repeated the trick at 26% and 27%. This judgment anchors the ceiling to the physical-goods rate plus real extra cost, and with the physical-goods reference at nil the negotiating room is thin. Subscription and digital-content teams should model that formula rather than the headline “external payments allowed”.

Three caveats. The orders cover the Australian storefront and Australian accounts only, so users elsewhere see nothing from this ruling. The 1 March 2027 date is a paper deadline: Apple says it will seek a stay and appeal, and paragraph 17 leaves the stay question open, so the real date depends on the appeal. And Apple still designs the compliance surface — notarisation, automated scanning and developer eligibility all stay in its hands, and it has used exactly those levers in every other jurisdiction.

The date to watch is the 1 to 15 February 2027 window. Apple must file there, with all its evidence, to move the deadline to 3 May; miss it and 1 March stands. Paragraph 1097 is the longer-run indicator: if Apple’s predictions about market change turn out right, it can apply to vary the orders later — with the burden of proof on Apple.