Update, 9:18 p.m. ET: Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney commented on Apple’s Supreme Court filing. Details below.
Apple filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking it to stay the Ninth Circuit’s order, which would send the case back to the District Court to determine how much it can charge for purchases made outside of the App Store. Here are the details.
A little context
Last year, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California found Apple in contempt from a 2021 court order related to purchases outside the App Store.
The court order prohibited Apple from blocking developers from including buttons or links to alternative purchasing mechanisms and from contacting users about those options using contact information obtained in the app. However, the court order did not specify whether Apple could charge a commission for those external purchases.
From the ruling:
Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees and anyone in concert or active participation with them (“Apple”), are permanently restricted and prohibited from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their applications and their metadata buttons, external links or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to in-app purchases and (ii) communicating with customers through contact points voluntarily obtained from customers through in-app account registration.
After the court order went into effect, Apple updated its App Store rules to allow such links while still applying a commission, setting a fee of up to 27%.
That, in turn, led to the contempt ruling, with the court arguing that by charging that fee, Apple was violating the spirit of the court order, even though the order itself did not explicitly mention or prohibit such fees.
Following the contempt ruling, the case went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which overturned the District Court’s zero commission rule and remanded the case to determine what commission Apple can charge.
Adding to the complexity of the case, Apple argues that the court order incorrectly applies not only to Epic Games, but to all developers around the world who distribute apps in the US App Store.
Since the 2025 contempt ruling, Apple has been complying with the order, while at the same time trying to reverse several of its aspects. That includes a new attempt to take the case to the Supreme Court, which brings us to today.
Apple asks Supreme Court to stop next phase of Epic case
In a filing sent to the Supreme Court today, Apple asks the court to stay the Ninth Circuit’s order, which would send the case back to the District Court to determine what commission it can charge for purchases outside of the App Store.
In essence, Apple argues the following:
- The contempt designation is undeserved, because the 2021 court order does not mention anything about App Store fees;
- Having this improper contempt designation on record unfairly harms your standing in the pretrial detention proceeding;
- The court order improperly extends beyond Epic Games to all developers in the US App Store;
Apple bases these arguments on previous court decisions and claims that it faces irreparable harm if the case proceeds now, including being required to litigate its commission under a contempt label and potentially disclosing confidential business information as part of the process.
The company also argues that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling conflicts with other courts by allowing contempt based on the “spirit” of a court order rather than its actual text, and says there is a reasonable possibility that the Supreme Court will take up the case and overturn parts of the ruling, which is why the proceedings should be stayed now.
Apple also notes that it is not seeking to block the court order itself and will continue to waive fees for purchases outside the App Store while the case is under review, meaning Epic faces no immediate harm from a pause.
Finally, Apple says it is still working on filing a formal request for the Supreme Court to review the case. However, it says that if the Supreme Court does not grant a stay, it must treat this application as that application.
Update, 9:18 p.m.: Commenting on today’s filing, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney pointed out one of Apple’s arguments about the broader implications of the case for the global app market:
Apple argues twice in its filing that “(r)regulators around the world are looking at this case to determine the commission rate Apple should be able to charge” in other countries, adding that “even if Apple could appeal any commission rate the district court sets on remand, that rate may be virtually difficult, if not impossible, to change in the other jurisdictions that are closely monitoring these proceedings.”
Worth checking out on Amazon
FTC: We use automatic affiliate links that generate income. Further.
