Apple files for Supreme Court stay in Epic case over off-App Store commission dispute [U]
Source: 9to5Mac
**Update (9:18 p.m. ET):**
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has commented on Apple’s filing to the Supreme Court. Details are provided below.
Apple has filed an application with the Supreme Court asking it to stay the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, which would send the case back to the District Court to determine what it can charge for purchases made outside the App Store.A Bit of Context
Last year, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found Apple in contempt of a 2021 injunction related to off‑App Store purchases.
The injunction prohibited Apple from:
- Blocking developers from including buttons or links that direct users to alternative purchasing mechanisms.
- Communicating with users about those options using contact information obtained in‑app.
The order did not specify whether Apple could charge a commission on those external purchases.
The Ruling (excerpt)
Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any person in active concert or participation with them (“Apple”), are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In‑App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.
After the injunction took effect, Apple updated its App Store rules to allow those links while still applying a commission, setting a fee of up to 27 %.
Contempt Decision
The district court ruled that by charging that fee, Apple violated the spirit of the injunction, even though the order itself did not expressly forbid commissions.
Appeal
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed the district court’s zero‑commission rule and sent the case back to determine what commission Apple may charge.
Ongoing Issues
- Apple argues the injunction should apply only to Epic Games, not to all developers worldwide who distribute apps on the U.S. App Store storefront.
- Since the 2025 contempt ruling, Apple has been complying with the order while simultaneously seeking to reverse several of its aspects.
- Apple has filed a new petition to take the case to the Supreme Court.
Apple gears up for another Supreme Court round in Epic Games saga (9to5Mac, 2026)
That brings us to today.
Apple Asks the Supreme Court to Pause Next Phase of Epic Case
In a filing sent to the Supreme Court today, Apple is asking the Court to stay the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, which would send the case back to the District Court to determine what commission it can charge on off‑App Store purchases.
Apple’s Arguments
- Undeserved contempt designation – the 2021 injunction did not mention App Store fees.
- Unfair prejudice – the contempt label harms Apple’s position in the remand proceedings.
- Overbroad injunction – the order improperly extends beyond Epic Games to all developers on the App Store’s U.S. storefront.
Apple bases these arguments on prior court decisions and claims it would suffer irreparable harm if the case proceeds now, including being forced to litigate its commission under a contempt label and potentially having to disclose sensitive business information.
The company also argues that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling conflicts with other courts by allowing contempt based on the “spirit” of an injunction rather than its actual text. Apple says there is a reasonable chance the Supreme Court will take the case and reverse parts of the ruling, which is why proceedings should be paused now.
Apple notes that it is not asking to block the injunction itself and will continue not charging commissions on off‑App Store purchases while the case is under review, meaning Epic faces no immediate harm from a pause.
Finally, Apple says it is still working to file a formal petition for Supreme Court review. If the Court does not grant a stay, Apple asks that this application be treated as that request.
Update, 9:18 p.m.: Commenting on today’s filing, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney pointed to one of Apple’s arguments about the case’s broader implications for the global app market:
“This confirms that Apple’s ongoing 5 years of stall tactics in the US court system – leading to the Contempt of Court finding against them and the criminal referral for giving false testimony – is plainly aimed at stalling worldwide relief for developers and consumers.”
— Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic) May 5 2026
Apple argues twice in its filing that “regulators around the world are looking to this case to determine the commission rate Apple should be permitted to charge” in other countries, adding that “even if Apple could appeal whatever commission rate the district court sets on remand, that rate may be practically difficult—if not impossible—to change in the other jurisdictions that are closely monitoring these proceedings.”
Worth Checking Out on Amazon
- David Pogue – Apple: The First 50 Years
- MacBook Neo
- Logitech MX Master 4
- AirPods Pro 3
- AirTag (2nd Generation) – 4 Pack
- Apple Watch Series 11
- Wireless CarPlay Adapter
FTC: We use income‑earning auto‑affiliate links. More.