Apple Requests Supreme Court to Temporarily Halt App Store Fee Case with Epic
On May 4th, Apple submitted an emergency application to the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting a stay of proceedings regarding App Store fee calculations before the Court decides whether to hear its latest legal dispute with Epic Games. Apple argues that without a stay, it will be forced to litigate its core business model under a highly unfavorable premise of being wrongly deemed in contempt of court and will have to disclose confidential business information with irreversible consequences.
Apple points out in its filing that regulatory bodies in many countries around the world are closely monitoring this case to determine what commission rates Apple can charge on related transactions in major markets outside the U.S. Apple believes that proceeding with any rate determination procedures under the premise that “Apple has violated the injunction and is in contempt of court” will bias the court’s fair review and could even evolve into an improper “price fixing” of App Store commissions. Apple also argues that the scope of the current injunction is controversial, stating in its appeal that the injunction should, in principle, apply only to Epic Games as a developer and not be extended to all developers distributing apps in the U.S.
The dispute dates back to 2021. In the first instance ruling in the Epic v. Apple case in the Northern District of California Federal District Court, Apple was ordered to relax the so-called “anti-steering” provisions, allowing developers to include links within apps to direct users to external payment channels to complete purchases. Apple subsequently opened links as required, but continued to charge a high fee for purchases made through those links, only 3 percentage points lower than the standard commission rate. The district court found this practice violated the original injunction, determined that Apple had “willfully violated the injunction,” and ruled that it constituted contempt of court.
In April 2025, the court further prohibited Apple from charging any fees for transactions completed through external links in the U.S. App Store, and Apple implemented this zero-commission adjustment in the same month. However, Apple immediately appealed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently upheld the finding that “Apple violated the injunction,” but also stated that Apple is entitled to reasonable compensation for its technology and platform. The court therefore ordered the Northern District of California to recalculate a “reasonable fee standard” to determine what fees Apple could charge for external link transactions. This is the “fee calculation phase” that Apple now seeks to stay.
Apple stated that it plans to continue challenging the district court’s contempt ruling and the scope of the injunction. The company believes that it is inappropriate to initiate fee calculation procedures involving global app market rules before the Supreme Court has the opportunity to overturn the rulings or fundamentally change the course of the case. In its application to the Supreme Court, Apple wrote that it is currently only requesting the Court to stay the appellate court’s “remand” order, so that a procedure that could reshape the global app market does not proceed on the premise that “Apple is engaged in civil contempt” before the Supreme Court formally accepts its application.
Previously, Apple had applied to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the advancement of the fee calculation phase during its appeal to the Supreme Court. The appellate court initially agreed to the stay, but reversed its decision after Epic Games objected. Therefore, Apple is now directly seeking the same relief from the Supreme Court. Under the current zero-commission policy for external links, U.S. developers do not have to pay Apple any fees for in-app purchases completed through third-party payment channels. Apple hopes to continue maintaining this path during its appeal to the Supreme Court until a higher-level court makes a new determination.
If the Supreme Court grants Apple’s stay request, transactions generated through external payment links in the U.S. App Store will remain zero-commission until the Court decides whether to formally hear the case. If the Supreme Court denies the stay request or decides not to hear the case, Apple and Epic Games will return to the Northern District of California District Court to begin a new round of hearings on whether Apple can and should charge a reasonable fee for external link transactions, and if so, at what rate.
It is worth noting that while submitting the stay application to the Supreme Court, Apple also hinted that the current application documents themselves could be viewed as a “certiorari petition,” meaning the Supreme Court may decide whether to formally hear the highly anticipated “Epic v. Apple” case relatively quickly. However, from a procedural timeline perspective, Apple cannot submit and have the Court review a complete certiorari petition before the Supreme Court’s summer recess. According to current arrangements, the “mandate” requiring Apple to return to district court to calculate fees will take effect on May 5th, which is the direct reason Apple chose to urgently seek help from the Supreme Court at this time.