• A judge dealt Apple a potential blow in its ongoing legal battle over App Store fees.
• Patreon and other players across the subscription creator economy are cheering it as a win.
• One exec called the court ruling "a shift toward a more equitable digital marketplace for creators."

Apple was issued a potentially crushing setback in its ongoing legal battle over App Store fees — but players across the subscription creator economy are cheering it as a win.

"This is a huge moment for creators and their businesses," a Patreon spokesperson told Business Insider in a statement. "The iOS app is the No. 1 platform for fan engagement on Patreon, and we believe this ruling allows creators to get paid without giving Apple 30%."

Patreon is a platform where creators can build subscription businesses and charge fans for paywalled content, such as podcasts or videos, and other perks.

A judge on Wednesday found Apple had violated a 2021 injunction in its legal fight with Epic Games. The dispute started over the 30% fee Apple collects on in-app purchases.

The 2021 injunction largely favored Apple, but it said the company needed to let developers inform users in their apps about purchase options outside the Apple App Store. Wednesday's ruling said the company failed to do that. It also said Apple violated the court's order by charging a 27% fee when links guide users to off-app purchases.

An Apple spokesperson previously told BI that the company "strongly" disagrees with the court's decision and plans to both comply and appeal — a sentiment echoed by CEO Tim Cook on the company's earnings call. Apple did not respond to a request for further comment.

Apps that help creators make money from subscriptions, like Patreon, Passes, Kajabi, and Mighty Networks, rejoiced at the changes. If more subscriptions are transacted outside Apple's ecosystem, it could mean more money for creators and platforms alike.

Patreon said it's submitting an app update for review that will enable payment options outside of in-app purchases so creators can keep more money.

Last year, the company said it was removing all other billing systems from its iOS app, and advised creators that they could either raise their in-app prices to cover Apple's fees or eat the fees themselves. Subscribers could also avoid the fees by signing up on Patreon's website.

While "the dust has yet to settle," given Apple's plans to appeal, "this is a good day for creative people," Patreon CEO Jack Conte said on Instagram.

Passes founder and CEO Lucy Guo told BI in a statement that "companies have had to charge more to creators because of these commissions, so this will put more money in creators' pockets."

Mighty Networks CEO Gina Bianchini said, "We are celebrating over here at Mighty Networks."

'A more equitable digital marketplace for creators'

The ruling could threaten Apple's App Store revenue, which is a major money maker for the company.

Last quarter, the company's services business, which includes its App Store, accounted for $26.6 billion in net sales.

While it's unclear how many prospective subscribers will forego the convenience of in-app purchases, Kajabi CEO Ahad Khan said the ruling points to a shift toward more creator ownership.

"Creators have long relied on social platforms and tech giants to earn money, and it cuts into their earnings and even limits how they engage with their audiences," he told BI. "This ruling is another proof point of this shift toward a more equitable digital marketplace for creators."

• The reaction among creators to Meta's content-moderation changes has largely fallen along political lines.
• Some influencers worry the changes could cause harm to the LGBTQ+ community.
• Others questioned Meta's decision to feature more political content.

Getting "Zucked" — a term for having your account suspended or content removed due to community violations — is a staple in the creator lexicon.

Despite that, creators who spoke with Business Insider had mixed reactions to Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg's plans to reduce content moderation in the name of free speech.

On Tuesday, Meta unveiled new policies that included winding down fact-checking, loosening content moderation, and introducing X-style "Community Notes."

The creator community largely reacted along political lines, with some left-leaning influencers expressing disappointment.

"This is really about just pandering to the Trump administration in a way that feels extremely obvious," LGBTQ+ advocate and "Gay News" host Josh Helfgott told BI.

Left-leaning filmmaker Michael McWhorter also said he felt the changes were catering to Trump and his MAGA base.

"You're not trying to balance things out," McWhorter said of Meta. "We are shifting to the other side of things."

Elsewhere, some right-leaning creators cheered the changes.

Christopher Townsend, an Air Force vet and conservative rapper with over 300,000 Instagram followers, told BI he thought the policy overhaul was "a great step toward the decentralization of information and the end to the control legacy media has had on the prevailing narrative."

Instagram head Adam Mosseri posted a video on Wednesday outlining how the new policies would impact creators. He said the company would correct its "over-enforcement" of content moderation and begin recommending political content again.

"If you're a creator who likes to post about political content, this should mean that you feel comfortable doing so on any of our platforms," Mosseri said. "We will now show political recommendations."

Meta didn't respond to a request for comment.

Some are wary of Community Notes

As part of the policy overhaul, Meta is getting rid of fact-checkers in favor of Community Notes in the style of Elon Musk's X. Users will be able to volunteer to contribute to Community Notes, which will appear on content when people with a range of different perspectives agree a correction is in order.

"Like X, it gives the user community more authority over the platform instead of biased third-party administrators," Townsend said.

McWhorter said that while Community Notes were a "great equalizer," he felt they were not an adequate replacement for fact-checking. He said he wished Meta would rely on a combination of both systems.

A former Instagram staffer told BI that they felt placing the responsibility to moderate content on users and creators "on a platform with massive global reach and historical harmful content issues" was a step in the wrong direction. They asked for anonymity to protect business relationships; their identity is known to BI.

Concerns about anti-LGBTQ+ discourse

Helfgott expressed concern about Meta's plan to decrease moderation around certain political topics. The company's blog post specifically noted immigration and gender identity as areas of debate where it plans to decrease restrictions.

Helfgott said that while Meta's plans were described in the language of "political discourse," he felt the changes could lead to bullying of the LGBTQ+ community.

Alongside Tuesday's announcement, Meta updated its Hateful Conduct policy.

"We do allow allegations of mental illness or abnormality when based on gender or sexual orientation," the company wrote, "given political and religious discourse about transgenderism and homosexuality and common non-serious usage of words like 'weird.'"

"This is the most anti-LGBTQ announcement that a social-media platform has made in recent memory," Helfgott said.

While McWhorter told BI he felt his content had been Zucked — or unfairly suppressed — in the past, he said he'd prefer a stricter moderating system even if it had "flaws."

"I'd rather that I take the hit for a joke that it didn't understand than that stuff being allowed to be spread all over the platform," he said, referring to potentially harmful posts.

Meta's increased political emphasis marks an about-face

Some creators were flummoxed by Meta's about-face on the amount of political content it plans to recommend. The company had previously cut back significantly on promoting political content in feeds in recent years.

Malynda Hale, a creator and activist with 65,000 followers, said this change could benefit political creators but questioned the company's motives.

"I think the fact that Meta is going to be serving up more political content is actually positive for creators like myself, but I don't think it's with the intention to keep the community informed," she told BI.

She said she felt Meta wanted to boost engagement even at the cost of division and disagreement.

Despite some misgivings, the creators who spoke with BI said they weren't going anywhere.

"I'll work with the system as it's presented to me, and I'll find my way to work around it," McWhorter said. "I constantly have to do that on all different platforms."

Helfgott said he felt "handcuffed" by Meta because if he stopped posting on Instagram, he would lose out on millions of people seeing his content each month.

"Meta knows this," he said. "They know that creators may not like this, but we need the reach, and we will keep posting there."