On 22 October 2026, Justice Jonathan Beach of the Federal Court of Australia ordered remedies in Epic Games' case against Apple. From 1 March 2027, iPhone users with Australian Apple Accounts must be able to install apps from third-party stores and websites. Developers must be able to use alternative payments and offer lower prices outside Apple's system. Fortnite is expected to return to the Australian App Store on 23 October. Apple says it will seek a stay and appeal, according to 9to5Mac's report on the 235-page decision.
The strongest case for the order
The argument for intervention is serious. The court found that Apple held "a substantial degree of power in the iOS app distribution services market and the iOS in-app payment solutions market". It also found Apple used its developer agreements and App Store guidelines to restrict competition. Section 46 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 prohibits misuse of market power, and the court found that conduct breached it. Apple's 2020 removal of Fortnite was called a "paradigm example" of enforcing those terms.
A developer on iOS has no real alternative route to Australian iPhone users. If the only channel is controlled by a firm that also competes with developers, a court is entitled to say that bargaining is not free. Remedies that rely on voluntary compliance would simply restate the problem.
Why this remedy is better designed than most
The pro-innovation test for a competition remedy is whether it removes the restraint without rewriting the product. By that test, the order has three sound features.
- It is territorially limited. The court rejected Epic's request for worldwide injunctions. The order covers Australian Apple Accounts. Epic had sought global access to rival stores and payment systems, while Apple had proposed changes limited to Australian account holders for five years, according to MLex. Judge Beach landed between the two. Courts in one jurisdiction should not set product rules for the world, and this one did not.
- It preserves security tooling. Apple may keep its security scanning and notarization requirements for apps distributed outside the App Store. Apple's best argument has always been user safety, and the order does not dismiss it. It does not let the safety argument justify blocking competition altogether.
- It targets fees as a gatekeeping device. Apple is barred from charging fees for access to alternative distribution channels and from requiring developers to report transactions made through alternative payment providers. Certain fees on external payments are limited. The order does not set a price for Apple's services. It stops Apple taxing the exits.
That last point matters for innovation. A price cap on commissions would invite years of argument over what a fair rate is. Banning the toll on competitors' channels lets prices be set by competition instead.
What could still go wrong
There are three risks, and a fair critic of the order should name them.
First, there is the timetable. Apple has until 15 February to ask for an extension to 3 May 2027, subject to court approval. It has also said it will seek a stay. If a stay is granted, the March date slips. If it is refused, Apple must build compliance systems on a short runway. Rushed implementation is how security gaps and confusing consumer interfaces appear, and the first big malware story from a sideloaded Australian app would be used against every future remedy of this kind.
Second, there is the appeal. Apple may challenge both the liability findings and the remedies, as MLex notes. The Federal Court's liability finding rested on Section 46. The claims of exclusive dealing and unconscionable conduct were not upheld in the earlier liability ruling, as reported by Bird & Bird's coverage of the liability decision. A full appeal would test how far Section 46's effects-based reading reaches into platform design. The legal certainty that the remedy provides is only as good as the appeal outcome.
Third, there is the policy vacuum around it. The ACCC took part in the remedies stage. It was granted leave to intervene to make written submissions on relief issues in the public interest, according to its media release. Its Commissioner, Luke Woodward, said the orders "could have wide-ranging implications for mobile app distribution and in-app payments in Australia", as ChannelNews reported. Case-by-case litigation takes years, produces rulings that bind only the parties, and leaves other developers to sue separately. Epic's case against Google ended in March 2026 with a global settlement and consent dismissal, so Australia now has one firm under court order and another that settled on private terms.
What regulators and legislators should take from this
The order is a useful template because it is limited in scope. It addresses the specific restraints found, leaves security review in place, and does not try to export Australian rules.
The lesson for policymakers is to prefer this kind of targeted, evidence-backed remedy over broad ex ante design mandates. Remedies that follow a finding of misuse are proportionate in a way that blanket obligations on all platforms are not. They are tied to demonstrated harm and tested in court.
The costs ruling points the same way. Apple must pay 85% of Epic's legal costs from the original trial, with costs for the remedies hearings reserved. That is a deterrent that comes from litigation, not from a standing regulator with open-ended powers.
The open question is whether Australian users will actually benefit. Lower prices outside Apple's payment system and rival stores only matter if developers use them and users trust them. The measure of success will be developer uptake and consumer outcomes in 2027, not the length of the judgment. Apple's appeal will decide whether the court's targeted approach survives. If it does, other jurisdictions weighing app store rules will have a working model: find the restraint, remove it, and leave the rest of the product alone.