Supreme Court Lets Apple Delay App Store Fee Fight for 24 Hours

[MacRumors]

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan today granted Apple a one-day stay in its legal fight with Epic Games, giving Apple more time to outline the fees it wants to charge developers for linking out to purchase options on the web.

Just yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Apple's request for a stay in the proceedings, giving Apple 24 hours to deliver its fee proposal. Apple then submitted an emergency filing to the Supreme Court, arguing that fee calculations should be paused until the justices hear the case and make a decision on the contempt ruling. If the contempt ruling is thrown out, fee proceedings won't be necessary.

Bloomberg says the short stay is meant to give the high court more time to consider Apple's request. Without the pause, Apple would have needed to submit its proposed fees to the court by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday. Apple now has until 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, unless the Supreme Court gives the company a longer reprieve. Kagan already denied a similar stay request earlier this year.

The fight over fees is part of an ongoing dispute with Epic Games that started in 2020. Apple won the initial legal fight and wasn't declared a monopolist, but the company was ordered to change its anti-steering rules to let developers link to non-App Store purchase options. Apple did so, but charged fees that were almost identical to standard App Store fees.

Epic Games accused Apple of violating the injunction, and the court agreed. Apple was found in contempt of court for willfully violating the original ruling, and barred from collecting fees on links in the U.S. App Store.

An appeals court ruling upheld the contempt decision, but said Apple was due reasonable fees for its intellectual property. The case was sent back to district court to determine what a reasonable fee might be. Apple then appealed to the Supreme Court, and the justices agreed to hear it.

Apple wants the Supreme Court to throw out the contempt ruling, negating the order barring it from collecting fees and the subsequent appeals court order mandating reasonable fee calculations. Apple has argued that regulators worldwide are watching to see what a U.S. court considers a reasonable rate, so fee proceedings set a reference point even if the contempt ruling is thrown out.

Apple has not collected fees from link-outs in the U.S. since April 2025, and the company would rather continue to collect no money while it exhausts all appeals than have the court establish a rate.

Article Link: Supreme Court Lets Apple Delay App Store Fee Fight for 24 Hours

 

[gleepskip]

This is a ridiculous circus from top to bottom. It's a legal battle for the sake of a legal battle. Gross.

 

[boswald]

This is a ridiculous circus from top to bottom. It's a legal battle for the sake of a legal battle. Gross.

I know I'm tired of hearing about it. I'm not a huge Tim Cook fan and I really don't like Sweeney either. I wish they'd both just shake hands and walk away.

 

[CalMin]

Apple sees these fees as its future. They're never going to yield unless one of their executives is threatened with jail.

Interestingly - as much as we complain about the 30% cut - on balance it is still a good deal for devs. My wife has self-published her first book (physical copies - it's a kids book) and she's losing 50-60% of the revenue to 3rd-parties. If someone offered her a 30% deal she'd jump at it!

 

[Daniel Poulin]

This is a ridiculous circus from top to bottom. It's a legal battle for the sake of a legal battle. Gross.

I agree that it's a circus, but it's not just for the sake of a legal battle. The court has the opportunity to prevent anti-competitive practices. I get that Epic is simply acting in their self-interest here, but preventing apple from implementing anti-competitive practices is in consumers' interests, and that's why the court continues to weigh in on this.

I care about Apple's products a lot more than I care about Epic's products, which is why I hope courts continue to prevent apple from engaging in anti-competitive practices. For me it's not about who "wins" and "loses" between corporations, it's about whether the consumer gains some reasonable protections.

 

[I7guy]

I agree that it's a circus, but it's not just for the sake of a legal battle. The court has the opportunity to prevent anti-competitive practices. I get that Epic is simply acting in their self-interest here, but preventing apple from implementing anti-competitive practices is in consumers' interests, and that's why the court continues to weigh in on this.

I care about Apple's products a lot more than I care about Epic's products, which is why I hope courts continue to prevent apple from engaging in anti-competitive practices. For me it's not about who "wins" and "loses" between corporations, it's about whether the consumer gains some reasonable protections.

Apple shouldn’t implement anticompetitive practices but they should be allowed to charge the going rate for the last many years.

 

[MysticTalisman]

Apple shouldn’t implement anticompetitive practices but they should be allowed to charge the going rate for the last many years.

Apple has been engaged in anticompetitive practices and willful non compliance for years.

 

[gleepskip]

I agree that it's a circus, but it's not just for the sake of a legal battle. The court has the opportunity to prevent anti-competitive practices. I get that Epic is simply acting in their self-interest here, but preventing apple from implementing anti-competitive practices is in consumers' interests, and that's why the court continues to weigh in on this.

I think it will be moot. Apple is going to have done to them what they did to the industry starting in 2007.

 

[HiVolt]

I don't think Apple should have the right to charge a fee for purchasing a subscription outside of its store, if they won't allow alternative App Stores.

People own their hardware, they should have an explicit choice. It's already a settled thing in the EU. The world hasn't collapsed as far as I know because its allowed there and millions of phones aren't being hacked.

 

[Blowback]

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan today granted Apple a one-day stay in its legal fight with Epic Games, giving Apple more time to outline the fees it wants to charge developers for linking out to purchase options on the web.

Just yesterday, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California denied Apple's request for a stay in the proceedings, giving Apple 24 hours to deliver its fee proposal. Apple then submitted an emergency filing to the Supreme Court, arguing that fee calculations should be paused until the justices hear the case and make a decision on the contempt ruling. If the contempt ruling is thrown out, fee proceedings won't be necessary.

Bloomberg says the short stay is meant to give the high court more time to consider Apple's request. Without the pause, Apple would have needed to submit its proposed fees to the court by 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on Wednesday. Apple now has until 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, unless the Supreme Court gives the company a longer reprieve. Kagan already denied the a similar stay request earlier this year.

The fight over fees is part of an ongoing dispute with Epic Games that started in 2020. Apple won the initial legal fight and wasn't declared a monopolist, but the company was ordered to change its anti-steering rules to let developers link to non-App Store purchase options. Apple did so, but charged fees that were almost identical to standard App Store fees.

Epic Games accused Apple of violating the injunction, and the court agreed. Apple was found in contempt of court for willfully violating the original ruling, and barred from collecting fees on links in the U.S. App Store.

An appeals court ruling upheld the contempt decision, but said Apple was due reasonable fees for its intellectual property. The case was sent back to district court to determine what a reasonable fee might be. Apple then appealed to the Supreme Court, and the justices agreed to hear it.

Apple wants the Supreme Court to throw out the contempt ruling, negating the order barring it from collecting fees and the subsequent appeals court order mandating reasonable fee calculations. Apple has argued that regulators worldwide are watching to see what a U.S. court considers a reasonable rate, so fee proceedings set a reference point even if the contempt ruling is thrown out.

Apple has not collected fees from link-outs in the U.S. since April 2025, and the company would rather continue to collect no money while it exhausts all appeals than have the court establish a rate.

Article Link: Supreme Court Lets Apple Delay App Store Fee Fight for 24 Hours

Wonder how much of the’ winnings’ Epic has shared with customers……./s.

 

[MysticTalisman]

Apple has been engaged in anticompetitive practices and willful non compliance for years.

Actually Apple was found to be in malicious compliance by the U.S. District Judge. To those who downvoted my post these are facts.

 

[DocMultimedia]

What is the Epic model? Get money from children through pointless games?

I’m glad I can’t name one of their games. Unfortunately, all young people do is play. I had more fun learning how to do physics for medical radiation solutions.

 

[surferfb]

Actually Apple was found to be in malicious compliance by the U.S. District Judge. To those who downvoted my post these are facts.

The judge ruled that Apple wasn’t in violation of any federal antitrust law, wasn’t in violation of any federal competition law, and wasn’t a monopoly.

She did rule Apple was, in her opinion, in violation of a California state competition law, but she literally got the law wrong (the California state court system later ruled the conduct was not a violation of California law) and the ruling only stood due to a technicality around timing (Apple’s appeals process was exhausted by the time the California courts got around to ruling). Had California courts ruled more quickly, then the federal judge’s finding would have been thrown out, as state courts’ rulings on their law takes precedence over a federal judge’s rulings regarding state laws.

 

[delsoul]

I’m really hoping Apple hands Sweeney his 🍑. I’m beyond sick and tired of Tim and Epic. Just sod off into the sunset already.

Glad scotus gave Apple some
Extra time.

 

[svish]

Waiting to see the fees presented by Apple. Has been a long fight. Hopefully it will come to an end soon.

 

[delsoul]

What is the Epic model? Get money from children through pointless games?

I’m glad I can’t name one of their games. Unfortunately, all young people do is play. I had more fun learning how to do physics for medical radiation solutions.

Tim Sweeney is just angry that Apple won’t let them rake in millions upon millions of dollars from the under 18 crowd that will use mom and dads account to buy their junk. Tim smells money and is beyond kissed off he can’t touch it.

 

[MysticTalisman]

The judge ruled that Apple wasn’t in violation of any federal antitrust law, wasn’t in violation of any federal competition law, and wasn’t a monopoly.

She did rule Apple was, in her opinion, in violation of a California state competition law, but she literally got the law wrong (the California state court system later ruled the conduct was not a violation of California law) and the ruling only stood due to a technicality around timing (Apple’s appeals process was exhausted by the time the California courts got around to ruling). Had California courts ruled more quickly, then the federal judge’s finding would have been thrown out, as state courts’ rulings on their law takes precedence over a federal judge’s rulings regarding state laws.

She ruled Apple was in malicious compliance and in contempt of court. I suggest you read her latest order that has just been released.

"A stay prejudices plaintiff and others, while allowing Apple to continue to frustrate the injunction. There is relatively little harm to Apple. That Apple agreed to file its evidentiary proffer within 24 hours of this Court’s decision reveals Apple is prepared to proceed. The factfinding mandated by the Ninth Circuit will need to be done irrespective of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Thus, a stay will not result in significant conservation of judicial resources. Given Apple’s propensity to delay, this phase will likely take time. We are approaching the five-year anniversary of this Court’s decision. Further delay is unwarranted.

The motion is DENIED in full. Apple shall file its proffer within 24 hours of the filing of this order."

 

[surferfb]

She ruled Apple was in malicious compliance and in contempt of court. I suggest you read her latest order that has just been released.

"A stay prejudices plaintiff and others, while allowing Apple to continue to frustrate the injunction. There is relatively little harm to Apple. That Apple agreed to file its evidentiary proffer within 24 hours of this Court’s decision reveals Apple is prepared to proceed. The factfinding mandated by the Ninth Circuit will need to be done irrespective of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Thus, a stay will not result in significant conservation of judicial resources. Given Apple’s propensity to delay, this phase will likely take time. We are approaching the five-year anniversary of this Court’s decision. Further delay is unwarranted.

The motion is DENIED in full. Apple shall file its proffer within 24 hours of the filing of this order."

I’m well aware of her orders. I’d note that the latest one you quote was, if you read the article you’re commenting on, at least temporarily paused by the Supreme Court as the Supreme Court is planning to review whether or not the judge was correct when finding Apple in contempt of court and punishing Apple for being, as you put it, “maliciously compliant” this fall.

That doesn't change the fact that she was wrong in her ruling that Apple violated California state law, and, in fact wasn’t behaving anticompetitively in any legal sense in the US as far as this case goes.

Had I been Apple’s legal counsel, I would have not necessarily recommended they go down the path that they did, as it led to antagonizing the judge who is now clearly biased against them.

But I also understand that they weren’t actually guilty of violating any law in this case, so I can certainly understand the desire to comply to the erroneous ruling to the least extent possible allowable by law.

And, for what its worth, they’ve got at least four justices on the Supreme Court who think the argument that Apple wasn’t actually in contempt should be seriously considered.

 

[I7guy]

Apple has been engaged in anticompetitive practices and willful non compliance for years.

Says which court of law? You say for years. The one item that needs resolution is from the epic vs Apple case. And the Supreme Court will hear the arguments. However that is not anticompetitive for years. So you’re objectively incorrect.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I know I'm tired of hearing about it. I'm not a huge Tim Cook fan and I really don't like Sweeney either. I wish they'd both just shake hands and walk away.

Sweeney started the whole thing with violating the terms of a contract they agreed to. Any win for them is telling the industries, "If you don't like the terms of the agreement you signed (like you suck at negotiating or that one guy that should never agree to terms with anyone agreed to the terms), re-negotiating is one way to go OR you can start the whole thing out by simply ignoring your contract. If things go your way, it'll be worth it!

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Apple sees these fees as its future. They're never going to yield unless one of their executives is threatened with jail.

Interestingly - as much as we complain about the 30% cut - on balance it is still a good deal for devs. My wife has self-published her first book (physical copies - it's a kids book) and she's losing 50-60% of the revenue to 3rd-parties. If someone offered her a 30% deal she'd jump at it!

And, if she was offered a 15% deal just for filing some paperwork, she'd jump at that, too. Well over 90% of all developers meet the criteria for it. Those that don't either pull in multiple millions of dollars a year in revenue OR… ahh, I guess they just like to pay Apple 30%?

The 15% commission is likely the least impactful of any cost they're currently dealing with as a developer. And unlike rent, electricity, food, etc. If you don't sell anything, you don't pay anything. I’ve always said that if anyone is in business in ANY industry, is offered a 85% cut and CAN’T make a profit from that, the problem is not that the 15% cut is overly burdensome. It’s that they suck at business. Badly.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

I’m well aware of her orders. I’d note that the latest one you quote was, if you read the article you’re commenting on, at least temporarily paused by the Supreme Court as the Supreme Court is planning to review whether or not the judge was correct when finding Apple in contempt of court and punishing Apple for being, as you put it, “maliciously compliant” this fall.

That doesn't change the fact that she was wrong in her ruling that Apple violated California state law, and, in fact wasn’t behaving anticompetitively in any legal sense in the US as far as this case goes.

Had I been Apple’s legal counsel, I would have not necessarily recommended they go down the path that they did, as it led to antagonizing the judge who is now clearly biased against them.

But I also understand that they weren’t actually guilty of violating any law in this case, so I can certainly understand the desire to comply to the erroneous ruling to the least extent possible allowable by law.

And, for what its worth, they’ve got at least four justices on the Supreme Court who think the argument that Apple wasn’t actually in contempt should be seriously considered.

I’m one of the (likely very very few) folks that think antagonizing the judge was the point. If she had kept her cool, she might NOT have made a ruling that violated California state law (and some say, the constitution regarding forcing private entity to give away resources without payment). Especially if they saw their chances being better at the Supreme Court. If they win, I’m sure some will point to her ruling coming out of frustration of wanting to do “something” when, legally, there’s nothing here to “do”. Unless they want to set a precedent where any contract can be undone by one of the parties breaking the contract.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Tim Sweeney is just angry that Apple won’t let them rake in millions upon millions of dollars from the under 18 crowd that will use mom and dads account to buy their junk. Tim smells money and is beyond kissed off he can’t touch it.

This is pretty much it. While Apple really could cut sweetheart deals with anyone they wish to, they’ve ran their App Store as a, “If you do -this business activity- here’s an agreement we already have that fits you.” While their agreement benefits the huge reader apps, there’s nothing preventing me from creating a reader app and taking advantage of the exact same rules set up for Amazon.

Sweeney wanted a better deal than the 30% that everyone else paid and Apple, as they’ve likely done to lots of other companies before, said No, 30% is what you pay if you pull in more than $1m a year. Epic AGREED to the terms… then Sweeney thought to himself, “I’D RATHER MAKE NOTHING and even LOSE MILLIONS in attorney and court fees THAN MAKE $700,000 dollars a year!” and started down this path. A potential side benefit is that if he was able to get a judge to say that he can offer his wares in a digital store without paying the company running the store anything. Because in the end, he REALLY would like to have Fortnite on Steam without paying Steam a cent.

 

[aidler]

No matter how hard Apple fights, the days of them demanding their insane 30% commission and forcing everyone to use their App Store are coming to an end. It's just a matter of time. Change is coming. By all means, let them spend ungodly sums on legal fees for nothing in the end.

 

[MysticTalisman]

I’m well aware of her orders. I’d note that the latest one you quote was, if you read the article you’re commenting on, at least temporarily paused by the Supreme Court as the Supreme Court is planning to review whether or not the judge was correct when finding Apple in contempt of court and punishing Apple for being, as you put it, “maliciously compliant” this fall.

That doesn't change the fact that she was wrong in her ruling that Apple violated California state law, and, in fact wasn’t behaving anticompetitively in any legal sense in the US as far as this case goes.

Had I been Apple’s legal counsel, I would have not necessarily recommended they go down the path that they did, as it led to antagonizing the judge who is now clearly biased against them.

But I also understand that they weren’t actually guilty of violating any law in this case, so I can certainly understand the desire to comply to the erroneous ruling to the least extent possible allowable by law.

And, for what its worth, they’ve got at least four justices on the Supreme Court who think the argument that Apple wasn’t actually in contempt should be seriously considered.

Maliciously compliant is not my term. It is the Judge's exact words. The Judge is not biased against Apple. Apple has acted as a petulant child in court and no judge will put up with behavior.