2025-05-01T04:02:01Z

---

In a striking development in the ongoing legal battle between Apple Inc. and Epic Games, District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has accused Apple and its executives of lying under oath and violating a court order. This accusation emerged from Judge Rogers recent filing, which criticized the tech giant for its behavior during the antitrust case involving Epic Games.

The crux of the issue relates to statements made by Alex Roman, Apple's vice president of finance. According to Judge Rogers, Roman "outright lied" about the timing of the implementation of a 27% commission fee for transactions conducted through Apples App Store. This revelation has raised serious questions about the integrity of Apples testimony in court. Roman has yet to respond to requests for comment regarding the judge's allegations.

In her detailed order, Judge Rogers expressed her frustration over the lack of accountability shown by both Apple and its legal counsel, stating, "Neither Apple, nor its counsel, corrected the, now obvious, lies. They did not seek to withdraw the testimony or to have it stricken... Thus, Apple will be held to have adopted the lies and misrepresentations to this Court." This statement underscores the judge's serious concerns about the honesty of Apples executives during a significant legal proceeding.

The legal troubles for Apple stem from a lawsuit filed by Epic Games in 2020. Epic alleged that Apple was engaging in anticompetitive practices due to its control over the App Store and the payment systems for in-app purchases. The lawsuit sparked a high-profile trial that culminated in a 2021 ruling where the court determined that Apples restrictions on alternative in-app purchasing options were indeed anticompetitive. However, the court ruled largely in favor of Apple, finding the company had engaged in anticompetitive behavior in only one of the ten counts presented against it.

Following the court's ruling, an injunction was put in place that required Apple to allow developers to inform users about external payment options. However, in her latest filing, Judge Rogers accused Apple of refusing to comply with this injunction, stating, "Apple's response to the Injunction strains credulity. After two sets of evidentiary hearings, the truth emerged. Apple, despite knowing its obligations thereunder, thwarted the Injunction's goals, and continued its anticompetitive conduct solely to maintain its revenue stream. Remarkably, Apple believed that this Court would not see through its obvious cover-up." This statement highlights the judge's view that Apple has deliberately chosen to ignore legal mandates to protect its financial interests.

In light of these developments, the court has referred the matter to the United States Attorney for the Northern District of California to investigate whether criminal contempt proceedings are warranted against Apple. This referral indicates the seriousness of the allegations and the potential legal ramifications for the tech company.

In response to the court's accusations, an Apple spokesperson expressed the company's strong disagreement with the judge's decision. The spokesperson stated, "We will comply with the court's order, and we will appeal," signaling that Apple intends to fight back against these serious allegations in the legal arena.