Y Combinator has filed an amicus brief within the ongoing authorized battle between Apple and Epic Video games, arguing that the App Retailer has stifled startup innovation.
We’ve reached out to authorized reps for YC and Apple for remark.
The temporary comes in the course of the years-long authorized dispute. Epic Video games first filed an antitrust lawsuit in opposition to the iPhone maker in 2020 in protest of Apple taking a 30% charge for each buy made within the App Retailer, in addition to in-game purchases. Epic claimed in its swimsuit that Apple unlawfully banned builders from telling prospects about cost options to the App Retailer.
A choose ordered Apple to finish its anti-steering coverage, however as an alternative, the corporate carried out a hyperlink program that allowed builders to hyperlink to various cost strategies, with the app retailer taking a 27% charge.
In one other criticism, Epic accused Apple of violating the court docket injunction in opposition to anti-steering, and in April, the choose agreed, leading to an order for Apple to cease imposing restrictions on various cost options and amassing cost from such strategies.
Apple is interesting that ruling, and that’s why Y Combinator, a backer of Epic Games, has filed this amicus temporary in assist of Epic Video games. Y Combinator is asking the court docket to disclaim Apple’s attraction.
“Y Combinator — and the bigger enterprise capital neighborhood — have lengthy been hesitant to again app-based companies that had been poor investments as a result of Apple Tax,” Y Combinator wrote in its submitting. “A 30% income share can simply be the distinction between an organization that may afford to scale, rent new workers, and reinvest in its product, and one that’s perpetually struggling to remain afloat.”
Techcrunch occasion
San Francisco
|
October 27-29, 2025
With the present ruling– that Apple should permit builders to transparently supply various cost choices – the startup investor wrote: “For the primary time in practically 20 years, Y Combinator can severely think about investing in progressive companies that may have been inconceivable previously due to the ‘Apple Tax,” the submitting continued. The Apple Tax refers back to the charges Apple took from App Retailer purchases.
It went on to say that the Apple Tax was a “profound and sometimes insurmountable barrier to entry that stifles competitors and innovation at its supply” and that the court docket ought to deny Apple’s attraction and permit the anti-steering rule to face. The following argument is about to happen on October 21.