On May 2, 2025, Apple Inc. found itself embroiled in a significant legal battle as a class-action lawsuit was initiated against the tech giant by Hagens Berman, the same law firm that successfully secured a $100 million settlement for iOS developers affected by Apple’s App Store fees. The lawsuit raises serious allegations regarding Apple’s compliance with a 2021 antitrust injunction aimed at fostering a fairer marketplace for app developers.

1. Allegations of Contempt of Court

The new legal challenge comes on the heels of a federal court's ruling that found Apple in contempt for violating an injunction that mandated the company to allow app developers to sell subscriptions and in-app products directly to consumers through links in their applications. The injunction was intended to alleviate the financial burden of Apple's uniform transaction fees, which are set at 30% by default and 15% under specific programs.

Steve Berman, managing partner and co-founder of Hagens Berman, stated, “We believe app developers deserve a fair market to promote and sell their products, and the world’s largest corporation doesn’t get to bully them out of this billion-dollar revenue stream.” This sentiment encapsulates the core of the lawsuit, which aims to hold Apple accountable for its alleged attempts to undermine the court's orders.

2. Internal Schemes to Circumvent the Injunction

The class-action suit outlines Apple's purported strategy to circumvent the injunction designed to benefit iOS developers. The lawsuit claims that Apple conducted internal analyses that demonstrated its intention to maintain its revenue streams unlawfully. By implementing scare tactics to dissuade developers from utilizing the direct payment options mandated by the injunction, Apple is accused of prioritizing its financial interests over fair competition.

The court's findings indicate that despite the injunction being in effect for over 15 months, only 34 out of approximately 136,000 app developers on the App Store applied to offer linked-out payments. This represents a mere 0.025%, suggesting that Apple's tactics have been effective in stifling compliance among developers.

3. Impact on iOS Developers

The lawsuit's named plaintiff, Pure Sweat Basketball Inc., highlights the tangible consequences of Apple's alleged noncompliance. The company operates an app designed to help athletes improve their basketball skills, and under the injunction, it would have been able to sell subscriptions directly to its customers. Instead, due to Apple's actions, Pure Sweat and potentially over 100,000 other developers have been forced to pay commissions on in-app sales, which they believe Apple is not entitled to receive.

Berman emphasized that “Apple’s lip service concealed its real intentions from the start: to use every trick in the book to subvert the court’s order, in flagrant violation of the law.” This assertion underscores the gravity of the lawsuit and the potential ramifications for Apple if the court finds in favor of the plaintiffs.

4. Conclusion

As the legal proceedings unfold, the implications for Apple Inc. could be significant, not only in terms of financial repercussions but also regarding its reputation within the developer community. The outcome of this class-action lawsuit could reshape the landscape of app distribution on the App Store and redefine the relationship between Apple and the developers who rely on its platform for revenue.

The tech giant is expected to respond to the lawsuit in due course, and the financial community will be closely monitoring how this legal challenge impacts Apple’s operations and its standing in the competitive app marketplace.

Original press release