Supreme Court rejects Apple’s stay request, Epic Games case to head back to District Court
Source: 9to5Mac
Supreme Court Rejects Apple’s Request to Pause Epic Games Case
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Apple’s request to temporarily pause the Epic Games case. The matter now returns to the District Court, where a judge will determine the permissible commission Apple can charge for off‑App Store transactions.
- Decision: Apple’s request to halt the case was denied.
- Next Step: The case goes back to the District Court.
- Focus: Calculating the permissible commission for off‑App Store transactions.
Stay tuned for further updates as the proceedings continue.
Context
Earlier this week, Apple filed an application with the Supreme Court seeking a stay of the Ninth Circuit’s mandate that sent the Epic Games case back to the District Court.
In its filing, Apple argued that in 2025 it was wrongly found in contempt of a 2021 injunction related to off‑App‑Store purchases. At that time Apple was charging a 27 % commission on off‑App‑Store purchases because the court’s 2021 decision did not specify whether Apple could levy such fees.
Injunction 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.”
When Apple appealed to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court held that Apple may charge a commission, leaving the exact amount to be determined by the District Court.
Apple’s Supreme Court application
Apple asked the Supreme Court to stay the case from returning to the District Court, citing several arguments:
- The contempt designation is undeserved, because the 2021 injunction never mentioned App Store fees.
- The contempt finding unfairly harms Apple’s position in the remand proceedings.
- The injunction improperly extends beyond Epic Games to all developers on the App Store’s U.S. storefront.
Apple also warned that “regulators around the world … looking to this case to determine the commission rate Apple should be permitted to charge,” could be influenced by a procedural misstep or unfair ruling, potentially jeopardizing Apple’s chances at fair trials elsewhere.
Reaction from Epic Games
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney responded sharply, calling the filing “confirmation that Apple’s ongoing five 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.”
“Apple’s ongoing 5 years of stall tactics in the US court system … is plainly aimed at stalling worldwide relief for developers and consumers.” – Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic Games
Further reading
Back to Today
Supreme Court Decision
The U.S. Supreme Court rejected Apple’s request to stay the case, sending it back to the District Court. Apple is now preparing a formal petition for the Court to review the dispute.
“Great news – the Supreme Court denied Apple’s delay tactics. Now we head back to the District Court to determine what Apple can charge for only the necessary costs of implementing external purchase links.”
— Epic Games Newsroom (May 6 2026)
View tweet
What the Reuters report says
Justice Elena Kagan, speaking for the Court, declined to pause the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling that found Apple in contempt in the Epic Games lawsuit over App Store fees.
Epic Games filed a response opposing Apple’s stay request, arguing that Apple had not shown any irreparable harm and that a stay would only prolong uncertainty for developers and consumers about the commission on linked‑out purchases.
The case will now return to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, where proceedings on Apple’s off‑App Store commission are expected to resume soon. Until the District Court approves a new rate, Apple cannot charge commissions on linked‑out purchases, though the company is still likely to ask the Supreme Court to take up the dispute.
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 disclosure: Some links above are affiliate links that may earn income.
More about our affiliate policy