May 1 (Reuters) - Apple ( AAPL ) faces a possible

criminal contempt probe after a U.S. judge said it violated an

order to open its lucrative App Store to more competition and

misled the court.

Here is a look at how Apple ( AAPL ) got here and what comes next in

the blockbuster lawsuit brought by "Fortnite" maker Epic Games.

WHAT DID THE JUDGE SAY?

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland on

Wednesday ruled Apple ( AAPL ) was in "willful" violation of an

injunction she issued in 2021 in an antitrust lawsuit filed by

Epic Games.

Epic sued in 2020 to loosen Apple's ( AAPL ) control over

transactions in applications that use its iOS operating system

and how apps are distributed to consumers. The judge's prior

order required Apple ( AAPL ) to give developers more power to steer app

users to non-Apple ( AAPL ) payment options that avoid Apple's ( AAPL ) 30%

commission.

Apple ( AAPL ) failed to convince the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the

injunction, and it went into effect in early 2024. The new

ruling concerned whether Apple ( AAPL ) had complied with terms of the

injunction.

The judge accused Apple ( AAPL ) of "insubordination" and said it had

tried to cover up its decision-making process from the court.

WHAT MUST APPLE DO NOW?

Gonzalez Rogers said Apple ( AAPL ) must end several practices that

she said were designed to circumvent her injunction, including a

new 27% fee it imposed on app developers when Apple ( AAPL ) customers

complete an app purchase outside the App Store.

She also barred the company from using "scare screens" to deter

consumers from using third-party payment options. Apple ( AAPL ) had

denied violating terms of the court's order.

WHY DID THE JUDGE MAKE A CRIMINAL CONTEMPT REFERRAL?

On top of finding Apple ( AAPL ) took steps to evade her injunction,

Gonzalez Rogers referred Apple ( AAPL ) and one of its executives to

federal prosecutors for a possible criminal contempt

investigation.

"Apple ( AAPL ) sought to maintain a revenue stream worth billions

in direct defiance of this court's injunction," she said,

finding that internal records showed "Apple ( AAPL ) knew exactly what it

was doing" and that a finance executive had lied under oath.

Federal judges have authority to ask an investigative agency

such as the U.S. Justice Department to probe whether companies

and individuals should be prosecuted criminally for violating

court orders.

Gonzalez Rogers declined to say whether the government

should bring a charge. That will be up to the U.S. attorney who

oversees the San Francisco and Oakland federal prosecution

teams.

Companies found to be in criminal contempt can be subject to

fines, and individuals can face jail time.

CAN APPLE APPEAL?

Yes. Apple ( AAPL ) said it disagreed with the court's ruling and

will ask the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of

Appeals to review the order.

Apple ( AAPL ) could ask the court to immediately pause Gonzalez

Rogers' order while it pursues its challenge. The appeal could

move relatively quickly, since most of the complex antitrust

issues in the case have already been resolved.

Apple ( AAPL ) might face a high bar in its appeal, given the

extensive factual record developed by Epic at the lower court.

Appeals courts can be deferential to trial judges under those

circumstances.

After the 9th Circuit rules, either side can ask the U.S.

Supreme Court to review the decision.