Apple v. Epic: The Spicy Judge Edition
Grab your popcorn, because Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers just dropped a legal mic on Apple—and it’s got more heat than an A17 chip running Genshin Impact.
Here are some of the best burns from the court’s April 2025 Contempt Order:
1. “Apple’s non-compliance has been full-throated and unapologetic.”
Translation: They didn’t just ignore the rules—they revved the middle finger to full throttle and held it out the sunroof.
This is how the judge opened the order. That’s not shade. That’s a solar eclipse.
2. “Apple’s interpretation…is not grounded in the language of the Injunction and has been pursued in bad faith.”
Legal speak for: You made that up, and you know it.
Imagine trying to explain your homework was “technically done” while holding a blank sheet of paper. Apple, meet detention.
3. “Apple’s ‘compliance’ was a pretext…”
A pretext? That’s lawyer-code for a flimsy excuse wrapped in corporate PR.
Apple slapped a 27% tax on off-app purchases, added some scare screens, and called it “user choice.” The judge was not buying it.
4. “Apple’s leadership knew the risks but chose to press forward, prioritizing revenue over lawful compliance.”
This is the judicial equivalent of: They knew it was wrong. They did it anyway. And they liked it.
Tim Cook and co. apparently decided it was cheaper to beg forgiveness than ask permission. Bad call.
5. “Apple’s conduct has the effect—if not the intent—of coercing developers and misleading consumers.”
Nothing like being accused of both manipulation and misdirection in the same sentence.
If this were a D&D campaign, Apple would be rolling with +5 to gaslighting.
Bonus Round: Lying Under Oath
The judge noted that Apple VP Alex Roman gave false testimony. That’s right—someone perjured themselves in federal court. Not just a bad look… possibly a felony-level bad look.
Final Verdict (for now):
Apple willfully chose not to comply with this Court’s Injunction. It did so with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers which would, by design and in effect, maintain a valued revenue stream; a revenue stream previously found to be anticompetitive. That it thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation. As always, the cover-up made it worse. For this Court, there is no second bite at the apple.
It Is So Ordered.
The court stopped short of slapping Apple with a fine, but referred them for potential criminal contempt.
In other words: This isn’t over.
