On April 30, 2025, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted Cravath client Epic Games, Inc.'s ("Epic") motion to enforce a nationwide permanent injunction against Apple, Inc.'s ("Apple") anti‑steering policies for in‑app payments. Epic secured the injunction to restrain and prohibit Apple's anticompetitive conduct and fees, following a three‑week bench trial in May 2021, in which Cravath also represented Epic. In its April decision, the Court ruled that Apple was in willful violation of the 2021 injunction, having thwarted the injunction's goals and continued its anticompetitive conduct. The Court noted that "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 a result, the Court enjoined Apple from implementing its new restrictions and fees that violated the injunction, effective immediately.
The Court also found that Apple abused attorney‑client privilege designations to delay proceedings and obscure its decision‑making process, which required a special master review of certain documents over which Apple had asserted privilege. Ultimately, the Court sanctioned Apple in the amount of the full cost of the special masters' review and Epic's attorneys' fees on that issue. The Court further referred Apple to the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings would be appropriate.
The Cravath team includes partners GaryA. Bornstein, Yonatan Even, LaurenA. Moskowitz and MichaelJ. Zaken; senior attorney M.Brent Byars; associates CharlotteC. Rothschild, Phil Duggan, Kristina Stankovic, SamanthaS. Chen, Sarah Kim, ConorJ. Regan and Christina (Tina) Seideman; and foreign associate attorney Guillermo Pefaur. Brianna Ward also worked on this matter.
The case is Epic Games, Inc.v. Apple Inc., No. 4:20‑cv‑05640‑YGR (N.D. Cal.).
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
