The US Supreme Court rejected Apple’s request today that would have temporarily paused the Epic Games case from returning to the District Court for proceedings that are set to calculate how much commission it can charge for off-App Store transactions. Here are the details.
Earlier this week, Apple filed an application with the Supreme Court seeking a stay of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate that sends the Epic Games case back to the District Court.
In its filing, Apple argued that in 2025, it was wrongly found in contempt of a 2021 injunction related to off-App Store purchases. At the time, Apple was charging a 27% commission on off-App Store purchases, since the court’s 2021 decision did not specify whether Apple could charge such commissions.
From the ruling, as Apple pointed out in its request to the Supreme Court:
Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any person in active concert or participation with them (“Apple”), are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.
When Apple took the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court found that Apple was allowed to charge a commission, leaving it to the District Court to determine the amount.
That led to this week’s application, where Apple asked the Supreme Court to stay the case from going back to the District Court, based on arguments including:
Apple added that with “(r)egulators around the world (…) looking to this case to determine the commission rate Apple should be permitted to charge,” a purported procedural misstep or unfair ruling against it would hurt the company’s chances at fair trials elsewhere.
This argument was immediately singled out by Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney as, as he put it, confirmation that “Apple’s ongoing 5 years of stall tactics in the US court system – leading to the Contempt of Court finding against them and the criminal referral for giving false testimony – is plainly aimed at stalling worldwide relief for developers and consumers.”
Today, the US Supreme Court rejected Apple’s request to stay the case from going back to the District Court, while Apple prepares a formal request for the Supreme Court to review the case.
Great news – the Supreme Court denied Apple's delay tactics. Now we head back to the District Court to determine what Apple can charge for only the necessary costs of implementing external purchase links. https://t.co/VbSc52NpA2
— Epic Games Newsroom (@EpicNewsroom) May 6, 2026
As reported by Reuters:
Justice Elena Kagan, on behalf of the court, declined to pause a ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that deemed Apple in contempt in the Epic lawsuit contesting App Store fees.
The court’s decision came after Epic Games filed a response opposing Apple’s application earlier today, where it argued that Apple had failed to show any irreparable harm, since participating in remand proceedings while seeking Supreme Court review did not justify a stay.
Epic also argued that delaying the case further would continue to harm developers and consumers by leaving uncertainty about the commission Apple can charge on linked-out purchases, an argument the company also made to the Ninth Circuit in response to Apple’s request to stay the decision.
Considering how things stand right now, the path is clear for the case to return to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, with proceedings over Apple’s off-App Store commission expected to resume sooner rather than later.
For now, Apple still can’t charge commissions on linked-out purchases until the District Court approves a new rate. The company, however, is still expected to ask the Supreme Court to take up the dispute.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
此内容由惯性聚合(RSS阅读器)自动聚合整理，仅供阅读参考。 原文来自 — 版权归原作者所有。