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

Three established YouTube channels have sued Apple, alleging that the company violated the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) by unlawfully accessing and scraping millions of copyrighted videos from YouTube to train its AI models.


In a class action lawsuit filed in California federal court last week, the owners of the YouTube channels h3h3Productions (plus H3 Podcast and H3 Podcast Highlights), MrShortGame Golf, and Golfholics allege that Apple "deliberately circumvented" YouTube's protections against video scraping and "profited substantially" by doing so.

Apple's research papers indicate that some of the YouTube videos uploaded by the plaintiffs were used to train its AI models, the complaint alleges.

Apple's actions were "not only unlawful, but an unconscionable attack on the community of content creators whose content is used to fuel the multi-trillion-dollar generative AI industry without any compensation," the lawsuit adds.

The plaintiffs are seeking an injunction and damages individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated in the U.S., per the complaint.

In recent months, the same three YouTube channels have filed similar lawsuits against other tech giants, including Meta, Nvidia, ByteDance, and Snap.

h3h3Productions is a well-known YouTube channel created by Ethan Klein and Hila Klein, and they later created the H3 Podcast. Their channels have millions of followers, while MrShortGame Golf and Golfholics have hundreds of thousands of followers.
This article, "Apple Sued by Three YouTube Channels" first appeared on MacRumors.com

Discuss this article in our forums