--- title: Epic vs. Apple AU:Court Orders Alt App... description: The Federal Court of Australia ruled that Apple contravened section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act by blocking sideloading and alternative app stores... canonical: https://daily.dev/posts/epic-vs-apple-au-court-orders-alt-app-stores-sideloading-and-3rd-party-payments-ylqurjgpv twitter:card: summary_large_image twitter:site: @dailydotdev og:type: website og:site_name: daily.dev og:title: Epic vs. Apple AU:Court Orders Alt App Stores,Sideloading and 3rd Party Payments | daily.dev og:description: The Federal Court of Australia ruled that Apple contravened section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act by blocking sideloading and alternative app stores... og:url: https://daily.dev/posts/epic-vs-apple-au-court-orders-alt-app-stores-sideloading-and-3rd-party-payments-ylqurjgpv og:image: https://api.daily.dev/og/posts/YlqurjGpV.png og:image:alt: Epic vs. Apple AU:Court Orders Alt App Stores,Sideloading and 3rd Party Payments 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. # Epic vs. Apple AU:Court Orders Alt App Stores,Sideloading and 3rd Party Payments **[Hacker News](https://daily.dev/sources/hn)** · 488 min read · 1 upvotes · 0 comments ## Summary The Federal Court of Australia ruled that Apple contravened section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act by blocking sideloading and alternative app stores on iOS, and by forcing developers to use Apple's in-app payment system. Justice Beach ordered Apple to allow alternative app distribution channels and non-IAP payment methods, but limited the injunctions to the Australian App Store and users with Australian Apple Accounts. The changes don't take effect until noon on 1 March 2027, with a possible extension to 3 May 2027 if Apple applies between 1 and 15 February 2027. The court rejected Epic's request to void Apple's contractual terms under section 87, and ordered Apple to pay 85% of Epic's costs. ## Full article daily.dev links to this article rather than hosting it. Read it at the original source: ## Questions this post answers ### what did the Australian Federal Court order Apple to do about sideloading on iOS in the Epic Games case Apple must allow iOS users with an Australian Apple Account to discover, obtain and update apps, including alternative app stores, through channels other than the App Store, such as direct download, provided the apps pass an automated security scan and are notarized by Apple or a qualified third party. The order applies only to the Australian App Store and Australian Apple Accounts, not globally. _daily.dev tracks regulatory shifts like this for developers weighing iOS distribution options._ ### does the Epic v Apple Australia ruling force Apple to allow alternative payment methods in iOS apps Yes, the court ordered Apple to stop requiring developers distributing apps via the Australian App Store to use Apple's in-app purchase system (IAP) exclusively, and to permit links or buttons directing users to other payment methods for digital content. Apple may still impose necessary and proportionate security requirements after giving developers prior written notice. _developers planning payment flows for iOS apps follow cases like this on daily.dev before shipping changes._ ### when do the new Apple App Store rules take effect in Australia after the Epic Games ruling The injunctions requiring Apple to permit alternative distribution channels and payment methods do not commence until noon Melbourne time on 1 March 2027. Apple can seek a one-time extension to 3 May 2027 by filing an application with supporting evidence between 1 and 15 February 2027. _teams planning App Store compliance timelines can keep tabs on rulings like this via 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 - [Supreme Court will hear Apple's appeal over App Store contempt finding in Epic case](https://daily.dev/posts/supreme-court-will-hear-apple-s-appeal-over-app-store-contempt-finding-in-epic-case-7skxtbqbz) · The Next Web · 0 upvotes · 0 comments - [Apple loses contempt appeal in Epic case](https://daily.dev/posts/apple-loses-contempt-appeal-in-epic-case-scv7eek0y) · The Verge · 1 upvotes · 0 comments - [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 - [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 --- 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/epic-vs-apple-au-court-orders-alt-app-stores-sideloading-and-3rd-party-payments-ylqurjgpv) ```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":"Epic vs. Apple AU:Court Orders Alt App Stores,Sideloading and 3rd Party Payments","url":"https://daily.dev/posts/epic-vs-apple-au-court-orders-alt-app-stores-sideloading-and-3rd-party-payments-ylqurjgpv","mainEntityOfPage":{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https://daily.dev/posts/epic-vs-apple-au-court-orders-alt-app-stores-sideloading-and-3rd-party-payments-ylqurjgpv"},"datePublished":"2026-10-22T03:53:49.063Z","dateModified":"2026-10-25T10:17:14.243Z","description":"The Federal Court of Australia ruled that Apple contravened section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act by blocking sideloading and alternative app stores...","image":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/s--VDukGCjf--/f_auto/v1722860399/public/Placeholder%2002","thumbnailUrl":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/s--VDukGCjf--/f_auto/v1722860399/public/Placeholder%2002","isAccessibleForFree":true,"articleSection":"Hacker News","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":"Hacker News","logo":"https://media.daily.dev/image/upload/t_logo,f_auto/v1/logos/hn","url":"https://daily.dev/sources/hn"},"commentCount":0,"discussionUrl":"https://daily.dev/posts/epic-vs-apple-au-court-orders-alt-app-stores-sideloading-and-3rd-party-payments-ylqurjgpv","interactionStatistic":[{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"LikeAction"},"userInteractionCount":1},{"@type":"InteractionCounter","interactionType":{"@type":"CommentAction"},"userInteractionCount":0}],"keywords":"apple,app-store","timeRequired":"PT488M"} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"BreadcrumbList","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https://daily.dev"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Hacker News","item":"https://daily.dev/sources/hn"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Epic vs. Apple AU:Court Orders Alt App Stores,Sideloading and 3rd Party Payments"}]} {"@context":"https://schema.org","@type":"FAQPage","@id":"https://daily.dev/posts/epic-vs-apple-au-court-orders-alt-app-stores-sideloading-and-3rd-party-payments-ylqurjgpv#faq","mainEntity":[{"@type":"Question","name":"what did the Australian Federal Court order Apple to do about sideloading on iOS in the Epic Games case","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Apple must allow iOS users with an Australian Apple Account to discover, obtain and update apps, including alternative app stores, through channels other than the App Store, such as direct download, provided the apps pass an automated security scan and are notarized by Apple or a qualified third party. The order applies only to the Australian App Store and Australian Apple Accounts, not globally. daily.dev tracks regulatory shifts like this for developers weighing iOS distribution options."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"does the Epic v Apple Australia ruling force Apple to allow alternative payment methods in iOS apps","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"Yes, the court ordered Apple to stop requiring developers distributing apps via the Australian App Store to use Apple's in-app purchase system (IAP) exclusively, and to permit links or buttons directing users to other payment methods for digital content. Apple may still impose necessary and proportionate security requirements after giving developers prior written notice. developers planning payment flows for iOS apps follow cases like this on daily.dev before shipping changes."}},{"@type":"Question","name":"when do the new Apple App Store rules take effect in Australia after the Epic Games ruling","acceptedAnswer":{"@type":"Answer","text":"The injunctions requiring Apple to permit alternative distribution channels and payment methods do not commence until noon Melbourne time on 1 March 2027. Apple can seek a one-time extension to 3 May 2027 by filing an application with supporting evidence between 1 and 15 February 2027. teams planning App Store compliance timelines can keep tabs on rulings like this via daily.dev."}}]} ```