Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster


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.

app-store-blue-banner-epic-1.jpg

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.

Article Link: Apple Asks Court to Pause App Store Fee Fight While It Petitions Supreme Court in Epic Games Case
 
  • Wow
  • Like
Reactions: I7guy and Z-4195
This is beginning to get stupid. Contrary to what this article says most people in the know think that Apple has zero chance and is only wasting time and ressources. The SCOTUS already once rejected the case and send it back to the Ninth Circuit Court and the Ninth Circuit Court unanimously denied Apples petitions. They said:

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it. […] The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc
are DENIED.


The SCOTUS will not hear this case again.
 
Last edited:
I’d love to better understand how the world changed. Microsoft was successfully sued for antitrust for bundling Internet Explorer into their operating systems because of their market power.

Now you have this setup where you have no competition, where a company is making more margin selling other people’s products than they would get traditionally in a Big box outlet, and then wanting a cut of all future add-ons the same.

Love the security and safety, hate the fact their selected margins are significantly higher for them than they’ll allow anyone else.
Its no longer a method of distribution, it’s Software pimping.
 
I’d love to better understand how the world changed. Microsoft was successfully sued for antitrust for bundling Internet Explorer into their operating systems because of their market power.

Now you have this setup where you have no competition, where a company is making more margin selling other people’s products than they would get traditionally in a Big box outlet, and then wanting a cut of all future add-ons the same.

Love the security and safety, hate the fact their selected margins are significantly higher for them than they’ll allow anyone else.
Its no longer a method of distribution, it’s Software pimping.
lol. Android is bigger than ios. And Apple has never been the Microsoft or Intel in terms of Monopoly. There are options.
 
Last edited:
There have been a few apps recently, that have tried to force me to use a non-AppStore in app purchase (credit card, pay, etc) to subscribe to the service. I refuse to do that. I like having all my subscriptions in one place where I can cancel and review at any time. I will pay extra for that. I deleted those apps and found a competitor that provided a similar service that had in-app-purchase through AppStore.
 
I’ve tried reading this again, in reverse and upside down - and I still don't understand it.
The user is saying given Apple’s market share, what happened to Windows in the late 1990s isn’t relevant as Microsoft had like a 90% share, compared to iOS that has ~20% globally. (Although, to be fair Apple’s share is significantly higher in the US, which is what matters for purposes of a US court case).
 
There have been a few apps recently, that have tried to force me to use a non-AppStore in app purchase (credit card, pay, etc) to subscribe to the service. I refuse to do that. I like having all my subscriptions in one place where I can cancel and review at any time. I will pay extra for that. I deleted those apps and found a competitor that provided a similar service that had in-app-purchase through AppStore.
And that’s your choice. Giving the user the agency to make that choice for themselves is good.

There are annoyances with third party payment methods - for me mainly that, while purchases and subscriptions through Apple can be shared to family members, this is not necessarily the case with purchases in apps themselves, and not through Apple.

But that should be my choice. Apple should not remove that choice for me.
 
Last edited:
  • Love
  • Haha
Reactions: marte91 and rjp1
This is beginning to get stupid. Contrary to what this article says most people in the know think that Apple has zero chance and is only wasting time and ressources. The SCOTUS already once rejected the case and send it back to the Ninth Circuit Court and the Ninth Circuit Court unanumously denied Apples petitions. They said:

The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it. […] The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc
are DENIED.


The SCOTUS will not hear this case again.
I hope SCOTUS does hear this and Apple wins, I will celebrate it
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: marte91
Greed is determined by actions and morality, not law.
Greed itself cannot be said to be legal or illegal. No emotion can.

Only actions (or refusal to act) can be deemed legal or illegal. Because actions have consequences.

And before anyone tries a “gotcha”, speech is an action, not a thought or emotion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WarmWinterHat
Epic should be thrown out until they seek the same action against Sony… Microsoft and Nintendo who take a 30% cut.

Exactly. Targeting one company, when 30% is the standard across the board (minus epic who is throwing a wobbly) is ridiculous. Lets get things changed for all these gaming tech companies, or just accept that there are server costs, development cost and other costs that make up that 30%.
 
You are talking about an OS that does not run on Apple devices, your point is null.
lol, you can buy one. Anbdroid devices are cheaper, and some say even better. There are a lot of great options. The sad thing is when some people want to turn Apple devices into another homogenous Android device.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.