Apple plans to ask the United States Supreme Court to weigh in on the App Store fee restrictions and contempt of court ruling levied against it in the ongoing Epic Games vs. Apple legal battle.


In a filing on April 3 (via TechCrunch), Apple asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to hold off on a plan that would see the U.S. Northern District of California decide on a reasonable commission for Apple to charge developers for purchases made from a link in an app. Apple is concerned that the district court will decide on a fee, only to have the Supreme Court then reverse the ruling in its entirety.

Apple says that it does not want to make multiple major changes to its ‌App Store‌ fee structure. Instead, Apple proposes that the current no-commission setup remain in place until Apple hears back from the Supreme Court. Developers can currently include links to non-App Store purchase options in their apps and Apple charges no fee from purchases made using those links. Apple wants to continue fee-free links and hold off on the long legal battle to determine a fee for the time being.

Apple has not petitioned the Supreme Court to hear the case yet, and there is no guarantee that the Supreme Court will do so. Back in 2024, both Apple and Epic Games asked the Supreme Court to make a ruling in their ongoing dispute, but the Supreme Court denied the request. Apple is going to ask the Supreme Court to hear the contempt aspect of the case, and there's a non-zero chance the Supreme Court will agree.

Back in April 2025, Apple was found to have violated a 2021 injunction requiring it to let developers direct customers to third-party purchase options on the web with in-app links. The injunction stemmed from the ‌Epic Games‌ legal battle, which Apple won almost entirely. Apple was not found to have a monopoly, but the judge overseeing the case, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, ordered Apple to relax its "anti-steering" link rules.

Apple implemented new App Store rules, but only slightly lowered its fees. Apple charged a 12 to 27 percent commission instead of a 15 to 30 percent commission for purchases made via a web link, and the high fee combined with third-party payment fees meant almost no developers opted to add links. ‌Epic Games‌ accused Apple of charging "unjustified fees," and asked the court to decide whether Apple was complying with the injunction. The court found that Apple was in "willful violation," and Gonzalez Rogers banned Apple from collecting any fee on links at all.

Apple immediately appealed the ruling, but dropped link fees in April 2025. Apple argued that the ruling was unconstitutional and that it should receive compensation for its technology. In December 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals handed down a mixed ruling, agreeing that Apple violated the injunction, but questioning the severity of the response. The appeals court suggested Apple should be able to charge a reasonable fee, and tasked the district court with deciding what the fee should be.

Apple is hoping the Supreme Court will do what the appeals court did not, and vacate the district court's ruling entirely. Apple plans to challenge the contempt ruling and the scope of the injunction, which Apple argues should not extend to all developers nationwide, instead applying only to developers connected to ‌Epic Games‌. Apple is questioning the civil contempt ruling and the court's ruling that Apple violated the "spirit" of the injunction rather than the direct text. Apple says that it should not be held in contempt because the injunction had no specific wording about commissions. It's possible the spirit vs. plain text dispute will catch the Supreme Court's attention.

If the appeals court agrees to Apple's plan, the fee calculation hearing in the district court will be put on pause until the Supreme Court makes a decision. After an appeals court ruling, the Supreme Court is the last stop. If the Supreme Court decides not to hear the case, the appeals court ruling will stand and the district court will be able to proceed with deciding on a fee.

Should the appeals court not grant Apple's request for a stay, the district court will start the fee calculation process while Apple simultaneously petitions the Supreme Court and waits to hear back.
This article, "Apple Asks Court to Pause App Store Fee Fight While It Petitions Supreme Court in Epic Games Case" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums

The court order that required Apple to collect no fees from developers who link to purchases outside of the App Store is unconstitutional, Apple said today in a reply brief directed at Epic Games and filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Apple argues that it has been stripped of its rights to be compensated for its intellectual property in a ruling that sets a dangerous precedent for all companies.


Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who has been overseeing the Apple vs. ‌Epic Games‌ lawsuit, first ordered Apple in 2021 to let developers add in-app links directing customers to third-party purchase options on the web. Apple didn't have to implement the changes until 2024, and when it did, Apple charged a 12 to 27 percent fee for purchases made through links in an app. ‌Epic Games‌ went back to the judge and said Apple was charging "unjustified fees" and should be held in contempt of court.

Gonzalez Rogers agreed with Epic and said that Apple was in "willful violation" of the original order. In April 2025, Apple was given a much more specific mandate to allow linking with no fees and no control over how links are presented in an app, which was a win for ‌Epic Games‌ and for other app developers unhappy with paying fees to link out to the web. Apple implemented the changes, but appealed the ruling.

According to Apple, the 12 to 27 percent fee that it was charging and the rules that it had implemented around link design complied with the original order. The April ruling [PDF] forcing Apple to implement ‌App Store‌ changes said that Apple had not followed the "spirit of the injunction" and had instead used a "dubiously literal interpretation," a point that Epic emphasized in its own filing with the court. In response, Apple argues that this is a weak argument that led to the injunction being expanded beyond what is permissible by law.

The new injunction imposes, in meticulous detail, new design and formatting rules and dictates the messages that Apple may convey to its own users on its own platform. These requirements represent an improper expansion and modification of the original injunction—rather than an attempt to enforce compliance with the original injunction—and violate the First Amendment by forcing Apple to convey messages it disagrees with. Epic doubles down on the district court's emphasis on the "spirit" of the original injunction and Apple’s supposed bad faith, but civil contempt turns on whether a party has violated the actual terms of an injunction—which Epic does not meaningfully try to show

Apple argues that it should be able to ask for compensation for its IP protected technologies, and that the court should have forced compliance with the original injunction instead of rewriting the injunction with new terms that prohibit Apple from collecting fees.

The district court's sweeping new zero-commission rule also is not tailored to Epic's claimed harm, improperly imposes a punitive sanction, and effects an unconstitutional taking.

Should the Ninth Circuit Court find the updated injunction lawful, Apple suggests that the recent Trump v. Casa Supreme Court ruling [PDF] needs to be considered. The ruling said courts do not have the authority to issue universal injunctions that are "broader than necessary to provide complete relief" to the plaintiffs in the case. ‌Epic Games‌ is the only plaintiff in the case, so Apple also argues that the injunction changing the ‌App Store‌ rules for all developers is too broad. Apple says that the injunction should be tailored to Epic and Epic's interests alone.

Epic has never demonstrated how requiring Apple to permit all manner of linked-out purchases from any developer—and prohibiting Apple from collecting any commission on such purchases—is necessary to remedy Epic’s full harm, particularly for linked-out transactions that do not involve Epic. Just the opposite, Epic has lined up amici to describe how they wish to steer on the back of Apple's IP-protected technologies at zero cost to themselves, and not to the Epic Games Store.

... Requiring Apple to permit linked-out transactions to Spotify, Microsoft, or Amazon does not benefit Epic in any way and is not necessary to remedy any harm suffered by Epic.

Apple wants the new injunction vacated, and the original injunction reconsidered to determine whether it is too broad.

As of right now, Apple is required to allow all developers in the U.S. to provide links to external websites with no restrictions on link design and no fees. If the appeals court rules in Apple's favor, Apple could change its ‌App Store‌ rules again to reimplement fees.
This article, "Apple Says App Store Changes Go Too Far in New Epic Games Appeal Filing" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums