Apple has lost a court battle to delay App Store changes while it asks the U.S. Supreme Court to weigh in on its long-running dispute with Epic Games surrounding developer fees.

On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier decision that had let Apple keep its current App Store commission structure in place while it appeals to the Supreme Court. The reversal means Apple now has to return to a lower court to work out what fees it can charge developers who steer customers to outside payment options.

Apple won the pause earlier this month by arguing that it shouldn't have to overhaul its fee structure twice if the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in its favor. In response, Epic Games immediately filed two motions: one said it hadn't been given time enough to prepare a response to Apple's stay request, and another asking the court to reject the original request.

The three-judge panel granted Epic's motion for reconsideration. The judges said Apple hadn't shown that the Supreme Court was likely to take the case, and pointed out that the high court already chose not to hear Apple's challenges once back in 2024. They also rejected Apple's claim that being forced into lower-court hearings would cause real harm.

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney shared the news in a post on X, adding that "Apple's delaying tactics have come to an end!"

The case now heads back to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in California, who will determine what commission Apple can collect on purchases made through external links, if any. Apple can still petition the Supreme Court while those proceedings move ahead.

The dispute traces all the way back to the original Epic Games trial, which Apple largely won. However, one exception was a 2021 ruling from Judge Gonzalez Rogers ordering Apple to relax its "anti-steering" rules and let developers point users to outside payment options.

Apple complied with the ruling, but only slightly lowered its fees, which led few developers to even bother adding links. Epic subsequently returned to court, and the judge found Apple in willful violation of the original injunction. Consequently, it barred Apple from collecting any commission on external links.

Apple appealed and dropped the link fees while the case moved forward, but the company argued that the ruling was unconstitutional and that it should receive compensation for its technology. Then in December 2025, the appeals court delivered a split decision: Apple had violated the injunction, but the company should still be able to charge something reasonable. That sent the question of what that fee should look like back to the district court.

Apple is now hoping the Supreme Court will go further and throw out the district court's ruling altogether.