Apple vs Sideloading: The Latest Legal Developments

ByScarlet iOS Team Updated on

The Legal Battle Over iPhone App Distribution

The fight over who controls what software can run on an iPhone has moved from technical forums and developer conferences into courtrooms and legislative chambers around the world. In 2026, the legal landscape surrounding iOS sideloading is more complex, and more consequential, than at any point in the iPhone’s history. Multiple high-profile cases are proceeding simultaneously, and the outcomes will shape the iPhone experience for hundreds of millions of users for years to come.

For context on how these legal changes are already affecting what is possible on iPhone today, see our guide on what Scarlet iOS is and how it works in 2026.

The Epic Games Case: Long Aftermath

The Epic Games v. Apple lawsuit, which began with Fortnite’s removal from the App Store in 2020, continues to cast a long shadow. While Epic did not win a declaration that Apple’s App Store policies are illegal monopoly behavior under US antitrust law, the case produced a significant injunction: Apple cannot prohibit developers from including in their apps links or buttons directing users to non-App Store purchasing mechanisms.

Apple’s compliance with this injunction has been the subject of continued legal skirmishing. In April 2025 the district court found Apple in contempt because its “link entitlement” implementation imposed a 27% commission on purchases made through external links. In December 2025 the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the contempt finding, but said Apple may ask the district court for some commission on linked purchases, so the fight over that fee continues.

The outcome matters for sideloading because it tests whether courts are willing to impose meaningful restrictions on Apple’s control over its platform. A finding that Apple continues to act in bad faith could lead to much broader remedies.

The DOJ’s Antitrust Case Against Apple

In March 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a sweeping antitrust lawsuit against Apple, alleging that the company illegally maintained a monopoly in the smartphone market through a range of exclusionary practices. The App Store policies, including restrictions on third-party app stores and sideloading, are central to the DOJ’s case.

The Sideloading Allegations Specifically

The DOJ complaint argues that Apple’s prohibition on sideloading and third-party app stores (outside the EU) is an anticompetitive practice that:

  • Raises prices for consumers by eliminating competition in app distribution
  • Disadvantages iPhone users relative to Android users who have always had the ability to sideload
  • Entrenches Apple’s 30% commission rate by eliminating alternative distribution channels
  • Creates barriers for developers who cannot afford the App Store commission structure

In June 2025 the court denied Apple’s motion to dismiss, so the case is moving forward, but no trial is expected before 2027 and the outcome is years away.

European Commission Enforcement Actions

The EU’s Digital Markets Act compliance regime has generated its own set of enforcement actions. The European Commission opened formal proceedings against Apple in March 2024 and a further non-compliance procedure in June 2024 to investigate whether its DMA compliance implementation was adequate. Among other things, the Commission looked at:

  • Whether Apple’s “Core Technology Fee” (0.50 EUR per first annual install above one million) effectively nullifies the benefits of alternative distribution for most developers
  • Whether Apple’s eligibility requirements and contract terms for developers using alternative distribution are compatible with the DMA
  • Whether the multi-step install flow and warning screens users see when installing from outside the App Store discourage alternative distribution

In preliminary findings published in June 2024, the Commission concluded that Apple was likely breaching the DMA’s anti-steering rules. In April 2025 it fined Apple €500 million for that breach, a decision Apple has appealed. Apple then announced new EU terms in June 2025, replacing the per-install fee with a Core Technology Commission on sales from 2026; the Commission is still assessing whether the changes are enough. Under the DMA, fines can reach up to 10% of global turnover.

Japan, UK and Brazil Regulatory Actions

Japan

Japan’s Fair Trade Commission secured commitments from Apple to allow third-party payment systems in reader apps in 2021, and the Mobile Software Competition Act, passed in 2024, required more comprehensive platform openness. Since the law took effect in December 2025, Apple has allowed alternative app marketplaces for users in Japan (starting with iOS 26.2), a model similar to, though narrower than, the EU’s DMA.

United Kingdom

In October 2025 the UK’s Competition and Markets Authority designated Apple and Google as having “Strategic Market Status” in mobile platforms under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, passed in 2024. This lets the CMA impose conduct requirements on app distribution and app store rules, but it has not ordered sideloading so far. An earlier CMA market investigation into mobile browsers and cloud gaming ended in March 2025 and fed into this process.

Brazil

In Brazil, a case at the competition authority CADE ended with Apple agreeing in late 2025 to allow alternative app marketplaces and external purchase links for users in Brazil, rolled out in 2026. AltStore PAL, for example, is now available in the EU, Japan and Brazil.

What the Legal Landscape Means for Sideloading Tools

For users of tools like Scarlet iOS, the legal battles are largely background noise in practical terms: Scarlet iOS works today in any region, regardless of where any given court case stands, though Apple can revoke its certificates at any time. But the legal outcomes will determine whether future iPhones become more or less open.

If the DOJ prevails and the court orders Apple to permit sideloading in the US, the number of Americans who can install third-party tools without any friction will increase dramatically. This could increase Scarlet iOS’s user base substantially while potentially reducing the friction of getting started for new users.

If regulatory pressure forces Apple to extend EU-style alternative marketplace support globally, the entire ecosystem around third-party iOS distribution will evolve. Tools like Scarlet iOS would likely adapt to participate in a more open marketplace framework while continuing to serve users who need capabilities beyond what notarized apps can offer.

Apple’s Defense Strategy

Apple’s legal arguments consistently center on security and privacy. The company argues that:

  • The App Store review process protects users from malicious apps
  • Sideloading creates vectors for malware that would harm users
  • The closed ecosystem is a feature, not a bug, and users choose iPhones partly because of it
  • Antitrust law does not require a company to design its products in ways that benefit competitors

These arguments have had mixed success across different jurisdictions. European regulators have largely rejected them as rationalizations for anticompetitive behavior. US courts have been more receptive, though the DOJ case pushes much harder than the Epic case did.

Conclusion: A Pivotal Year for iPhone Freedom

2026 may well be the most consequential year in the history of iPhone app distribution. Multiple high-stakes legal proceedings are approaching critical phases simultaneously. The decisions rendered in these cases will determine whether the EU model of limited openness spreads globally, whether Apple faces mandatory sideloading requirements in its largest market, and how much control Apple retains over the platform it built.

While the legal battles play out, Scarlet iOS continues to provide the sideloading freedom users want right now. Download Scarlet iOS today and do not wait for courts to catch up with what is already possible.

Similar Posts