Apple updates its App Store guidelines to allow external payment options

Engadget - May 2nd, 2025

Apple has revised its App Store guidelines following a California court order, halting the collection of commissions on non-App Store purchases. This change allows developers to include buttons and external links that direct users to alternative purchasing mechanisms on the US storefront without needing Apple’s approval. This update comes after Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple was not in compliance with her 2021 decision in the Epic Games lawsuit, which required Apple to permit developers to direct users to other payment systems, bypassing Apple's 30% commission.

The implications of this decision are significant, as developers can now offer alternative payment options, potentially reducing costs for both developers and consumers. Epic Games announced the return of Fortnite to iOS, conditional on Apple adopting a global no-commission policy. Other companies, such as Spotify, are also preparing to leverage these changes by submitting updates that enable external payments. This could mark a shift in the app ecosystem, challenging Apple's revenue model and sparking broader changes in digital marketplace policies.

Court Ruling Fortnite Epic Games Apple App Store Spotify Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers Payment Systems

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

7.6

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a comprehensive overview of Apple's response to a legal ruling, detailing the changes to its App Store guidelines. It excels in accuracy, with most claims corroborated by reputable sources, and presents a balanced view by including reactions from various stakeholders. The piece is timely and addresses significant public interest issues, though it could enhance transparency by linking directly to primary sources and explaining complex legal terms more thoroughly. While the article engages readers with its focus on a high-profile case, it could further increase engagement by incorporating additional perspectives or interactive elements. Overall, the article is a reliable and informative piece that effectively communicates the key aspects of a complex legal and business issue.

Accuracy

The article accurately reports on Apple's update to its App Store guidelines in response to a court order. It correctly notes the removal of prohibitions on external links and the requirement for developers to seek entitlement for such links, as corroborated by Apple's developer guidelines and third-party analyses. The claim that Apple has stopped collecting commissions on purchases made outside the App Store is also supported by multiple sources. However, the story's mention of Fortnite's return to iOS lacks external confirmation of the timeline, which slightly affects the precision of that particular claim.

Balance

The article presents a balanced view of the situation by discussing both Apple's compliance with the court order and the reactions from Epic Games and other companies like Spotify. However, the piece could have benefited from more perspectives, such as comments from Apple regarding their stance on the updates or insights from independent legal experts about the implications of the court ruling. The focus is primarily on the developers' and Epic Games' perspectives, which could introduce subtle bias.

Clarity

The article is well-structured and uses clear language to convey complex legal and technical information. The progression of ideas is logical, starting with the court order and moving through Apple's changes and the reactions from developers. However, some legal terms and implications could be explained in more detail to ensure understanding by a general audience unfamiliar with the case's background.

Source quality

The article cites reputable sources like 9to5Mac and includes a statement from Apple, which adds credibility. However, it relies heavily on secondary sources without direct quotes from the court ruling or Apple's official statements. The lack of primary source material slightly diminishes the authority of the reporting, although the sources used are generally reliable and well-regarded in the tech industry.

Transparency

The article is somewhat transparent in its reporting, providing a clear basis for its claims by referencing a court decision and Apple's response. However, it does not provide direct links to the primary sources, such as the court ruling or Apple's official guidelines, which would enhance transparency. Additionally, the article does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest, such as financial ties to Apple or Epic Games, which could affect impartiality.