The Supreme Court of the United States agreed to hear Apple’s appeal to a lower court ruling which found the company in contempt of a 2021 court order related to the Epic Games case.
The case is scheduled for the next semester that begins in October. The judges have not granted Apple’s request to limit the injunction to just Epic, meaning the ruling will continue to affect all iOS developers.
The Supreme Court will determine whether Apple’s response to the initial court order was permissible or constituted contempt. The court will not consider whether Apple has a monopoly.
What the Apple and Epic case is about
U.S. District Judge Yvonne González Rogers’ 2021 court order required Apple to allow developers to direct users to payment options outside of the App Store. The goal was to give developers a way to avoid Apple’s standard 15% to 30% commission on in-app purchases.
Apple responded by allowing external payment links, but introduced new restrictions and began charging a 27% commission on purchases made through those links within seven days of using the link.
Epic Games argued that the 27% fee did not comply with the court order. In April 2025, Rogers agreed and found that Apple had intentionally violated his order.
It ordered Apple to stop charging fees for purchases made outside its payment system. The Ninth Circuit upheld the contempt ruling in December 2025 and stated that Apple could return to the district court to argue what charges, if any, could apply to digital products purchased outside of its system.
Apple stated: “This is an important question of law and we are pleased that the Supreme Court will hear our case.” The company’s argument is that it cannot be penalized for violating the “spirit” of a court order rather than its specific wording.
Epic shared on
What the Supreme Court will decide
The Supreme Court review will be more limited than Apple wanted. The judges decided not to consider whether the injunction should apply only to Epic or the developer community at large.
The court’s remaining question is whether Apple’s actions, including the 27% outside payment fee, constituted a contempt of the original court order.
The ruling could have implications for App Store fee structures across the iOS ecosystem, depending on the court’s decision. If Apple wins, it could validate similar fee practices for external payments.
If Epic prevails, it would mean that Apple cannot use fees to keep most of its commission when developers use third-party payment systems.
The dispute continues since 2020:
- In August 2020, Epic added its own payment option to Fortnite, violating App Store rules.
- As a result, Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store and Epic filed a lawsuit.
- In September 2021, Judge Rogers ruled largely in favor of Apple, rejecting broad monopoly claims but ordering Apple to relax its anti-steering rules. With appeals concluded, Apple introduced a 27 percent external payment fee in January 2024.
- In April 2025, Judge Rogers declared that Apple had flouted the 2021 court order and ordered the company to stop charging fees for outside purchases.
- The Ninth Circuit upheld this contempt ruling in December 2025. Fortnite returned to the US iOS App Store in 2026 after nearly five years. Currently, the Supreme Court has agreed to hear Apple’s appeal.
What developers and users should know
For developers currently using external payment links under the court order, the status of the 27% fee remains contested during appeal.
Apple’s fee structure has been put on hold due to the contempt ruling, but the Supreme Court’s upcoming decision could restore, modify or eliminate it depending on the outcome.
Developers should continue to use external payment links where permitted by current rulings and monitor Supreme Court proceedings for updates on the fee structure.
It is also advisable to prepare business plans for both possible outcomes, as failure could significantly affect the economics of external payments.
For users, the immediate impact of the case is limited. Purchases made through external payment links currently do not include the 27% fee in dispute.
However, if the Supreme Court resets or changes the tariff, developers may have to adjust their prices, which could lead to costs being passed on to users.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case in its next term that begins in October. A decision is unlikely to be made until later in the term. Both users and developers can track the case through the Supreme Court website as the proceedings unfold.
