--- title: Australian court rules Apple broke competition law;... description: Australia's Federal Court ruled that Apple broke competition law in running the iOS App Store, and Fortnite is back on iOS there. The 235-page decision found... canonical: https://daily.dev/posts/australian-court-rules-apple-broke-competition-law-fortnite-returns-to-ios-there-btspllzus twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:site: @dailydotdev og:type: website og:site_name: daily.dev og:title: Australian court rules Apple broke competition law; Fortnite returns to iOS there | daily.dev og:description: Australia's Federal Court ruled that Apple broke competition law in running the iOS App Store, and Fortnite is back on iOS there. The 235-page decision found... og:url: https://daily.dev/posts/australian-court-rules-apple-broke-competition-law-fortnite-returns-to-ios-there-btspllzus og:image: https://api.daily.dev/og/posts/BtSPlLzUs.png og:image:alt: Australian court rules Apple broke competition law; Fortnite returns to iOS there og:image:width: 1200 og:image:height: 630 og:locale: en --- > ## Documentation Index > Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://daily.dev/llms.txt > Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further. # Australian court rules Apple broke competition law; Fortnite returns to iOS there **[Collections](https://daily.dev/sources/collections)** · 2 min read · 2 upvotes · 0 comments ## Summary Australia's Federal Court ruled that Apple broke competition law in running the iOS App Store, and Fortnite is back on iOS there. The 235-page decision found Apple violated section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act by blocking sideloading and alternative app stores and forcing developers to use Apple's in-app payments. The court ordered Apple to allow alternative app distribution and payment methods and barred it from charging extra fees on third-party store purchases, though it rejected voiding Apple's contracts and ordered Apple to pay 85% of Epic's costs. The changes don't take effect until noon on 1 March 2027, and could be pushed to 3 May 2027 if Apple applies for a delay between 1 and 15 February 2027. Apple says it will seek a stay and appeal; Epic CEO Tim Sweeney called the ruling a 'huge victory for consumers and developers.' ## Content The Federal Court of Australia has ruled that Apple broke competition law by blocking alternative app stores, sideloading and third-party payments on the iPhone. Fortnite is already back on the Australian App Store. The decision runs 235 pages. Justice Jonathan Beach found that Apple "purposefully foreclosed every rival channel" and held a "substantial degree of power" over iOS app distribution and in-app payments. He ruled that Apple contravened section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act, and that the conduct dates back to November 2017. ## What Apple has to change Starting at noon on 1 March 2027, Apple must: - let users download apps from rival app stores and from developers' own websites - let developers use their own payment systems instead of Apple's in-app purchase system - stop charging fees or setting conditions for using those channels, including extra fees on purchases made through third-party app stores - refrain from adding friction or retaliating against developers who use them The orders apply only to the Australian App Store and to users with Australian Apple Accounts. If Apple applies between 1 and 15 February 2027, the start date can be pushed back to 3 May 2027. The Epic Games Store will follow at a later date. ## What the court declined to do Beach rejected Epic's request to void Apple's contractual terms under section 87. Apple was ordered to pay 85% of Epic's legal costs from the 2025 trial. ## Reactions Apple says it will request a stay and appeal. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney called the ruling a "huge victory for consumers and developers." The long lead time means little changes for Australian iPhone owners right away, and an appeal could delay things further. But the court has now put in writing that Apple's control over distribution and payments broke the law. ## Questions this post answers ### What did the Australian Federal Court rule about Apple's App Store? Apple broke Australian competition law by violating section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act, through blocking sideloading and alternative app stores and forcing developers to use Apple's in-app payment system. The 235-page ruling, from Justice Jonathan Beach, cites Apple's 'substantial degree of power' over iOS app distribution and in-app payments. Apple must now allow alternative app stores, direct downloads, and third-party payment methods in Australia. _Developers tracking app store rules in different regions can follow policy shifts like this one on daily.dev._ ### When does Apple have to open up the App Store in Australia after losing the Epic Games case? The changes take effect at noon on 1 March 2027, not immediately after the ruling. If Apple applies for a stay between 1 and 15 February 2027, that deadline could be pushed further to 3 May 2027. Apple has said it will request a stay and appeal the decision, so the timeline could shift again depending on the outcome. _Anyone planning distribution strategy around this deadline can keep tabs on Apple's appeal through daily.dev._ ### Is Fortnite available on iOS in Australia again? Yes, Fortnite has returned to iOS in Australia following the Federal Court ruling against Apple. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney called the decision a 'huge victory for consumers and developers.' The court did not grant Epic's full request, however, rejecting the attempt to void Apple's contractual terms under section 87, while ordering Apple to pay 85% of Epic's legal costs. _Developers watching the Epic v. Apple fallout can track further rulings and appeals on daily.dev._ ## Community take How the wider developer community reacted, aggregated from 1 discussion and 125 comments across hackernews (as of 2026-10-25). **TL;DR:** Reaction is split between enthusiasm for breaking Apple's app/payment monopoly and skepticism about whether ordinary users will actually use alt stores, with a long sub-thread debating how much to trust Apple's vetting versus fearing malicious compliance. **Sentiment:** 35% positive · 15% mixed · 50% skeptical **The case for** - Having the legal option of alternative stores/payments creates competitive pressure even if most people never use them. - The ruling explicitly bars Apple from many circumvention tactics (fees, API restrictions, forced removal from alt stores) seen in the EU. - App sandboxing remains intact, so security isn't inherently undermined by allowing alternative distribution. - Some see it as validating a broader principle that owners should control what runs on devices they purchased. **The pushback** - Many doubt real-world impact since most users and developers won't bother leaving the official store. - Strong distrust that Apple will maliciously comply or slow-walk the ruling for years as it allegedly did in the EU. - Concern that losing centralized vetting could increase exposure to scams and malware for less technical users. - Enterprise/security-focused commenters worry third-party stores complicate device management and trust assumptions for corporate environments. - Some argue the App Store's own vetting is already weak (ad-sold search results, scam apps slipping through), undercutting the 'trusted gatekeeper' argument either way. **By community** - hackernews (heated): Discussion is sharply divided between those cheering reduced Apple control and those skeptical users will benefit or that Apple will comply in good faith, with heated side-debates on trust, security, and terminology. **Hottest debate:** Whether Apple's app review process is genuinely trustworthy/necessary for security or largely theater, with examples cited on both sides. **Open questions** - Will Apple's 'notarization' requirement for alt-distributed apps become a new chokepoint or loophole for de facto control? - How will enterprise/BYOD security policies adapt if third-party app stores can't be detected or blocked? - Will Apple drag out compliance through appeals and incremental changes as it reportedly did with the EU's DMA? - Will this ruling's reasoning extend to other closed platforms like gaming consoles (e.g., Nintendo)? **Highlights** > F-Droid on android was a far better app store than Google's. An Open Source / Free Software Only app store on iOS which only allowed reproducible builds would be so much better than the iOS app store for security. I would trust that so much more, and I feel like anyone even marginally technically competent would too. If Mozilla made its own app distribution platform for Firefox and Thunderbird, I'd also naturally trust that. At this point, I do not trust apple at all. The iOS app store sells ads. If I search for my bank's name, a different bank comes up as the first result. If you search 'Ledger Bitcoin Wallet' on the app store, someone who pays more for the ad slot can present you with a crypto stealer (which has happened in the past! the app store review didn't catch that obvious bullshit). The app store's "due diligence" and "vetting" all went out the window as soon as they started selling the top search spot to the highest bidder. > — [TheDong on hackernews](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50192297) > > until they comply so maliciously you'll need a new term for that. The ruling is pretty clear that malicious compliance won't be accepted. There's a whole section on all the things apple isn't allowed to do to get around this ruling, starting with this: > the first respondent must not (including by procuring any act of any related corporation) prohibit, prevent or take any action (including by imposing a fee or condition) which is likely to hinder users of iOS devices from discovering, obtaining and updating iOS apps, including alternative app stores, via Alternative Distribution Channels, or from using iOS apps obtained in that way on iOS devices, or prohibit, prevent or take any action (including by imposing a fee or condition) which is likely to hinder app developers from distributing and updating such iOS apps to such users via Alternative Distribution Channels, ... > — [josephg on hackernews](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50190881) > Seems like sideloaded apps will require notorisation from Apple and some form of automated security/privacy scanning (plus a system for authorising alt stores to do the same). Payment fees for App Store apps seem to be affected in section 9(c) - I have trouble parsing it but it seem to eliminate any fee difference between purchasing physical goods through an app (currently 0% fee) and digital goods (currently 30% fee). There's a carve out for "reasonable costs" for hosting and distributing the digital goods - this could be sensible in certain scenarios (like Netflix asking Apple to a free CDN for them). We'll see how much malicious compliance the above produces. Otherwise I'm feeling like a happy Aussie today :) > — [andyferris on hackernews · 3 comments](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50191029) > Free loaders are going to freeload. At every turn this is payback because Apple won their case for Apple Pay against the Australian bank cartel. > — [Danox on hackernews](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50191326) > It's terrible news for anyone who has some responsibility for the security of environments in which these devices are used. Right now we have a relatively high confidence that as long as the devices are not jailbroken and are kept up to date they are relatively secure. What this change means for people like me is that either there is some capability to detect whether third-party app stores are in use on a device and we will set a policy that disallows anyone using such things from accessing company data/services, or we have to lock out the devices altogether. > — [somerandom2407 on hackernews · 8 comments](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50190949) **Source threads** - [hackernews](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50190168) · 125 points · 125 comments ## Similar posts on daily.dev - [Apple opens up its App Store to competition in Japan](https://daily.dev/posts/apple-opens-up-its-app-store-to-competition-in-japan-j7nmf8maq) · TechCrunch · 0 upvotes · 0 comments - [Google Play opens to third-party app stores on 22 July](https://daily.dev/posts/google-play-opens-to-third-party-app-stores-on-22-july-rzov08ekj) · The Next Web · 0 upvotes · 0 comments - [Apple wins small victory in appeal on Epic Games case](https://daily.dev/posts/apple-wins-small-victory-in-appeal-on-epic-games-case-pgbzdtym7) · GamesIndustry.biz · 0 upvotes · 0 comments - [Epic Games’s Fortnite is back in US Google Play Store, as court partially reverses restrictions it won on iOS](https://daily.dev/posts/epic-games-s-fortnite-is-back-in-us-google-play-store-as-court-partially-reverses-restrictions-it-w-z5ciezegq) · TechCrunch · 0 upvotes · 0 comments --- Tags: [#apple](https://daily.dev/tags/apple), [#app-store](https://daily.dev/tags/app-store) [View this post on daily.dev](https://daily.dev/posts/australian-court-rules-apple-broke-competition-law-fortnite-returns-to-ios-there-btspllzus) ```json {"@context":"https://schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https://daily.dev/#organization","name":"daily.dev","url":"https://daily.dev","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://daily.dev/apple-touch-icon.png","width":180,"height":180},"sameAs":["https://twitter.com/dailydotdev","https://github.com/dailydotdev","https://www.linkedin.com/company/daily-dev-ltd"]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https://daily.dev/#website","url":"https://daily.dev","name":"daily.dev","publisher":{"@id":"https://daily.dev/#organization"},"potentialAction":{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https://daily.dev/search?q={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}}]} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"TechArticle","headline":"Australian court rules Apple broke competition law; Fortnite returns to iOS there","url":"https://daily.dev/posts/australian-court-rules-apple-broke-competition-law-fortnite-returns-to-ios-there-btspllzus","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://daily.dev/posts/australian-court-rules-apple-broke-competition-law-fortnite-returns-to-ios-there-btspllzus"},"datePublished":"2026-10-22T08:13:12.331Z","dateModified":"2026-10-25T10:17:14.724Z","description":"Australia's Federal Court ruled that Apple broke competition law in running the iOS App Store, and Fortnite is back on iOS there. The 235-page decision found...","image":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/posts/89d144397036a71f42ba2b69da19825c?_a=AQAEuop","thumbnailUrl":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/f_auto,q_auto/v1/posts/89d144397036a71f42ba2b69da19825c?_a=AQAEuop","isAccessibleForFree":true,"articleSection":"Collections","inLanguage":"en","publisher":{"@type":"Organization","name":"daily.dev","url":"https://daily.dev","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","url":"https://daily.dev/apple-touch-icon.png","width":180,"height":180}},"author":{"@type":"Organization","name":"Collections","logo":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/s--fk_6ycEi--/f_auto,q_auto/v1780996001/logos/collections?_a=BAMAMiWQ0","url":"https://daily.dev/sources/collections"},"commentCount":0,"discussionUrl":"https://daily.dev/posts/australian-court-rules-apple-broke-competition-law-fortnite-returns-to-ios-there-btspllzus","interactionStatistic":[{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"LikeAction"},"userInteractionCount":2},{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"CommentAction"},"userInteractionCount":0}],"keywords":"apple,app-store","timeRequired":"PT2M"} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://daily.dev"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Collections","item":"https://daily.dev/sources/collections"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Australian court rules Apple broke competition law; Fortnite returns to iOS there"}]} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"FAQPage","@id":"https://daily.dev/posts/australian-court-rules-apple-broke-competition-law-fortnite-returns-to-ios-there-btspllzus#faq","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"What did the Australian Federal Court rule about Apple's App Store?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Apple broke Australian competition law by violating section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act, through blocking sideloading and alternative app stores and forcing developers to use Apple's in-app payment system. The 235-page ruling, from Justice Jonathan Beach, cites Apple's 'substantial degree of power' over iOS app distribution and in-app payments. Apple must now allow alternative app stores, direct downloads, and third-party payment methods in Australia. Developers tracking app store rules in different regions can follow policy shifts like this one on daily.dev."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"When does Apple have to open up the App Store in Australia after losing the Epic Games case?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"The changes take effect at noon on 1 March 2027, not immediately after the ruling. If Apple applies for a stay between 1 and 15 February 2027, that deadline could be pushed further to 3 May 2027. Apple has said it will request a stay and appeal the decision, so the timeline could shift again depending on the outcome. Anyone planning distribution strategy around this deadline can keep tabs on Apple's appeal through daily.dev."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"Is Fortnite available on iOS in Australia again?","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Yes, Fortnite has returned to iOS in Australia following the Federal Court ruling against Apple. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney called the decision a 'huge victory for consumers and developers.' The court did not grant Epic's full request, however, rejecting the attempt to void Apple's contractual terms under section 87, while ordering Apple to pay 85% of Epic's legal costs. Developers watching the Epic v. Apple fallout can track further rulings and appeals on daily.dev."}}]} ```