Epic has submitted Fortnite to the US App Store

Engadget - May 9th, 2025

Epic Games has submitted Fortnite to the US Apple App Store, marking a potential return of the game to iOS devices for the first time in nearly five years. This follows a court ruling that mandates Apple to cease collecting fees for purchases made outside the App Store. Epic has announced significant changes, including a commission-free structure for the first $1,000,000 in revenue per app annually and the introduction of standalone webshops to bypass Apple's fees. Epic's CEO, Tim Sweeney, expressed intentions to reintroduce Fortnite worldwide if Apple applies the court's ruling globally. However, Apple is appealing the decision and seeking to delay changes to its App Store operations.

The implications of this development are significant, as it challenges Apple's longstanding App Store fee structure, potentially opening the door for increased competition and alternative payment methods. Companies like Spotify are already adapting to this new landscape by allowing payments outside of the App Store. Additionally, a group of developers has filed a class-action lawsuit against Apple, claiming financial losses due to Apple's non-compliance with the court order. The story highlights the ongoing tension between major tech companies and developers over app distribution and revenue sharing, with potential repercussions for consumers and the app economy at large.

Fortnite Epic Games Apple Legal Challenges Tim Sweeney App Store Fees Developer Rights

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.8

Fair Story

Consider it well-founded

The article provides a largely accurate and timely account of the ongoing legal battle between Epic Games and Apple, focusing on the potential return of Fortnite to the App Store. It effectively communicates the key developments and their implications for the tech industry and consumers. However, the article would benefit from greater transparency in sourcing and a more balanced presentation of perspectives, particularly from Apple's side. The clarity and readability are strong, making the complex topic accessible to a general audience. Overall, the article succeeds in informing readers about a significant issue while leaving room for improvement in source attribution and balance.

Accuracy

The news story is largely accurate, with several key claims supported by factual events, such as Epic Games submitting Fortnite to the US Apple App Store and the ongoing legal dispute with Apple over App Store fees. The story accurately reports the judge's ruling that Apple must stop collecting fees for purchases made outside the App Store and Epic's response to this ruling. However, some claims, like the exact nature of the changes to Epic's sales platform and the specifics of Epic Rewards, would benefit from further verification to ensure precision. Overall, the story aligns well with known facts, though it could benefit from additional citations to strengthen its accuracy.

Balance

The article presents a clear perspective from Epic Games, particularly highlighting their actions and responses to the court ruling. While it mentions Apple's appeal and legal actions, the story predominantly reflects Epic's viewpoint, especially in statements about competition and fees. The balance could be improved by providing more insights into Apple's perspective and motivations, offering a more comprehensive view of the ongoing legal and commercial conflict.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and well-structured, presenting information in a logical sequence that aids comprehension. It effectively communicates the key developments in the Epic vs. Apple dispute, using straightforward language. However, some technical details, such as the specifics of Epic's sales platform changes, could be explained more clearly to enhance understanding for readers unfamiliar with the topic.

Source quality

The article does not explicitly cite sources, which affects the assessment of source quality. However, the information aligns with widely reported events and statements from credible entities like Epic Games and Apple. The lack of direct attribution to sources like court documents or official statements from Apple limits the ability to fully evaluate the reliability and authority of the information presented.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in terms of sourcing and methodology, as it does not provide direct citations or disclose the basis for some claims. While it effectively summarizes the situation, the absence of detailed explanations or references to specific legal documents or statements from involved parties reduces transparency. Greater disclosure of sources and methodologies would enhance the reader's understanding of the article's foundation.