Apple Asks Supreme Court to Pause Epic Games Case Ahead of App Store Fee Ruling

[MacRumors]

Apple today filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, asking for a stay on App Store fee calculations while it waits to hear whether the Supreme Court will weigh in on the latest developments in its legal battle with Epic Games.

Apple argues that without a stay, it will face irreparable harm. Apple says it will have to litigate the fundamentals of its business model with the "highly prejudicial taint of being (improperly) found to have acted in contempt of the court's initial order" with the world watching, plus the case would require it to disclose confidential business information, which can't be undone.

Regulators around the world are watching this case to determine what commission rate Apple may charge on covered purchases in huge markets outside the United States. No proceeding setting the commission Apple may charge--an endeavor that itself is fraught with challenges and raises the prospect of the courts engaging in improper rate-setting--should be allowed to unfold under the false and prejudicial auspices that Apple acted in contempt by charging a commission based on an injunction that did not even mention commissions.

The Supreme Court's finding could also affect the scope of the case, because one of Apple's arguments is that the injunction should only apply to Epic Games, not all developers that distribute apps in the United States.

For a recap, in 2021, the U.S. Northern District Court of California ordered Apple to relax its anti-steering rules as part of the ruling in the Epic Games v. Apple case. Apple was told to allow developers to link to alternate payment options in apps. Apple complied, but still charged high fees (three percent less than its standard fees), leading the court to find Apple in contempt of court for willfully violating the injunction.

In April 2025, Apple was barred from collecting any fees on links in apps in the U.S. App Store, a change Apple implemented the same month. Apple appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed Apple violated the injunction, but said the company should be able to receive compensation for its technology. The appeals court then ordered the district court to calculate a reasonable fee, and that's what Apple wants to pause.

Apple is planning to challenge the district court's contempt of court ruling and the scope of the injunction, and it does not want to go to court for fee calculations when there's a chance the Supreme Court could vacate the decision entirely.

All Apple seeks here is a stay of the mandate so this Court can consider Apple's petition before it is subjected to a remand proceeding that could reshape the global app market based on the false premise that Apple engaged in civil contempt.

Apple asked the appeals court to stay the fee calculation phase until it heard back from the Supreme Court. The appeals court agreed initially, but then reversed course after Epic Games challenged the decision. Apple is now asking the Supreme Court for the same stay that the appeals court denied.

Apple wants to keep its current zero-fee link-out commission structure in place while it appeals to the Supreme Court, which means developers in the U.S. would continue to pay no fees for purchases made using third-party payment options in their apps while the case plays out.

If the Supreme Court grants Apple's request for a stay, the zero-fee setup will remain in place while Apple waits on a decision from the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court does not grant the stay or declines to hear the case, Apple and Epic Games will return to the district court to determine the reasonable fee that Apple can collect.

While Apple is asking the Supreme Court for a stay as it prepares a full filing, Apple has also suggested that its filing could be used as a certiorari petition, so we could soon hear whether the Supreme Court will decide to hear the Epic Games v. Apple case. Apple will not be able to submit a petition for certiorari that will be considered before the summer recess.

The mandate that will send Apple back to the district court for fee calculations goes into effect on May 5.

Article Link: Apple Asks Supreme Court to Pause Epic Games Case Ahead of App Store Fee Ruling

 

[ghostface147]

Still? It's been what....since covid?

 

[gleepskip]

Apple says it will have to litigate the fundamentals of its business model with the "highly prejudicial taint of being (improperly) found to have acted in contempt of the court's initial order" with the world watching, plus the case would require it to disclose confidential business information, which can't be undone.

Oh the humanity.

 

[CarAnalogy]

This is not an emergency, the harm will not be irreparable, and the contempt finding was correct.

There will in fact be no harm. It's been this way for, what, a year now? Look at all the harm!

It is in fact slightly, measurably better now that there are fewer artificial hoops to jump through.

One tiny bit of anti-pattern defeated. Oh my god the harm!!

Quick edit: standard disclaimer that I do not like that it's Epic and Sweeney doing this, but nobody else is doing anything at all. Not in the US, anyway.

 

[PBG4 Dude]

Guess Clarence will be getting another RV soon.

 

[benface]

BAD APPLE

 

[Glideslope]

Guess Clarence will be getting another RV soon.

No Winnebago this time. Going Newmar King Aire this time.

 

[turbineseaplane]

From about 3 angles here, I'm not sure who the heroes and villains are.

I need to dig around the house and try to find my tiny violin.

 

[germanbeer007]

I love how people are saying Apple should just pay more but that costs end up just being passed on to you, the customer.

Nice shooting yourself in the foot.

 

[CarAnalogy]

From about 3 angles here, I'm not sure who the heroes and villains are.

I need to dig around the house and try to find my tiny violin.

No heroes, no villains, just different angles of exploitation.

 

[turbineseaplane]

No heroes, no villains, just different angles of exploitation.

So all villains basically 😂

 

[CarAnalogy]

I love how people are saying Apple should just pay more but that costs end up just being passed on to you, the customer.

Nice shooting yourself in the foot.

There's no costs though...People are literally asking Apple for the privilege of having nothing to do with it.

 

[surferfb]

It is kinda funny Apple is asking for emergency intervention to (temporarily) keep the commission zero and Epic is saying “no!”

 

[surferfb]

There's no costs though...People are literally asking Apple for the privilege of having nothing to do with it.

Incorrect. Without Apple there is no sale and no app. If you use someone’s property to do something and they ask to be paid, you need to pay.

 

[CarAnalogy]

Incorrect. Without Apple there is no sale.

Without a lot of things there's no sale. Should your ISP get a cut of every transaction you make on a website? Without your ISP, and their ISP for that matter, there's no sale.

Should Microsoft get a cut of every sale made on Windows? Should they have for the last many decades? Was their mistake not taking a toll from every single software developer on their platform?

If only they had been more of a toll-taker, maybe they wouldn't be so poor today...

Quick edit: and I further realize the irony that one reason that they are so rich today is because they did in fact go into the toll-taking business with Azure.

 

[germanbeer007]

There's no costs though...People are literally asking Apple for the privilege of having nothing to do with it.

False. For one, it costs Apple to run Maps for developers which is paid for by App Store revenue, something of which Epic argues it shouldn't have to pay for to be on the platform.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I always consider the alternate universe where Apple, at some point in the last 10 years, reduced their cut to something in the 7-12% range across the board and none of this would be happening.

 

[germanbeer007]

I always consider the alternate universe where Apple, at some point in the last 10 years, reduced their cut to something in the 7-12% range across the board and none of this would be happening.

then we wouldn't have all of these amazing tools/services that developers have access to to provide value for customers.

 

[surferfb]

I always consider the alternate universe where Apple, at some point in the last 10 years, reduced their cut to something in the 7-12% range across the board and none of this would be happening.

I’m not so sure “none of this would be happening”. There are a lot of people who are opposed to Apple collecting any fee. Tim Sweeney is one of them.

 

[CarAnalogy]

False. For one, it costs Apple to run Maps for developers which is paid for by App Store revenue, something of which Epic argues it shouldn't have to pay for to be on the platform.

I do understand that there is always going to be maneuvering to take advantage, and I agree that companies should not be provided expensive services for free by taking advantage.

However, the whole crux of this entire issue is whether Apple should be the sole and unquestioned arbitrator of all services, when there are others willing to provide those services.

This is what the third party app store (even that framing is successful marketing...) in Europe was about, and why it didn't go anywhere due to sabotage.

There were parties willing to validate software supply chain, provide payment services, do everything Apple insists only it can do. But they aren't allowed.

And that's not even the scope this is about. This specific issue is about Apple being given a chance to be reasonable for many months, contemptuously (there's that word again!) not doing so, and suffering the maximum punitive damage from non-cooperation.

They brought it on themselves and I'm sure the lawyers from that original case have been replaced.

 

[turbineseaplane]

I’m not so sure “none of this would be happening”. There are a lot of people who are opposed to Apple collecting any fee. Tim Sweeney is one of them.

It’d be a fun experiment to run. Never exposing yourself to the heat in the first place can go a long ways on stuff like this.

 

[CarAnalogy]

I’m not so sure “none of this would be happening”. There are a lot of people who are opposed to Apple collecting any fee. Tim Sweeney is one of them.

Yeah but that's the point. They were specifically ordered to come up with a reasonable fee. They purposely did absolutely nothing.

And then the federal judge who ordered them to do something got tired of their excuses. And multiple courts since have agreed.

 

[germanbeer007]

I do understand that there is always going to be maneuvering to take advantage, and I agree that companies should not be provided expensive services for free by taking advantage.

It's not about taking advantage of developers but rather making it a no brainer to provide useful services to their consumers without the complexity of extra bills to worry about.

No bedroom developer should worry about a $100k map usage bill because they provided a free app that went viral.

However, the whole crux of this entire issue is whether Apple should be the sole and unquestioned arbitrator of all services, when there are others willing to provide those services.

This is what the third party app store (even that framing is successful marketing...) in Europe was about, and why it didn't go anywhere due to sabotage.

There were parties willing to validate software supply chain, provide payment services, do everything Apple insists only it can do. But they aren't allowed.

The platform owner should be able to control the platform however they want and the market will vote with their wallet.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Yeah but that's the point. They were specifically ordered to come up with a reasonable fee. They purposely did absolutely nothing.

And then the federal judge who ordered them to do something got tired of their excuses. And multiple courts since have agreed.

Apple trying to get the Supreme Court to help them out, in our current moment, is leaving me with very mixed feelings.

 

[CarAnalogy]

It's not about taking advantage of developers but rather making it a no brainer to provide useful services to their consumers without the complexity of extra bills to worry about.

No bedroom developer should worry about a $100k map usage bill because they provided a free app that went viral.



The platform owner should be able to control the platform however they want and the market will vote with their wallet.

Developers should be aware of the license agreements of the APIs they use. Not sure what specific example you're talking about.

And your last sentence assumes a working free market economy. Do you believe that we exist in a working free market economy when it comes to mobile computing platforms?