Apple files for Supreme Court stay in Epic case over off-App Store commission dispute

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. Here are the details.

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 to alternative purchasing mechanisms, and from communicating with users about those options using contact information obtained in-app. However, the injunction didn’t specify whether Apple could charge a commission on those external purchases.

From the ruling:

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%.

That, in turn, led to the contempt ruling, with the court arguing that by charging that fee, Apple was violating the spirit of the injunction, even though the order itself did not mention or explicitly prohibit such commissions.

Following the contempt decision, the case went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the District Court’s zero-commission rule and sent the case back to determine what commission Apple may charge.

Adding to the complexity of the case, Apple argues that the injunction improperly applies not just to Epic Games, but to all developers worldwide who distribute apps on the App Store’s U.S. storefront.

Since the 2025 contempt ruling, Apple has been complying with the order, while at the same time attempting to reverse several of its aspects. That includes a new bid to take the case up to the Supreme Court, which 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.

In essence, Apple is arguing the following:

• The contempt designation is undeserved, because the 2021 injunction didn’t mention anything about App Store fees;
• Having this undue contempt designation in the record is unfairly hurting its position in the remand proceedings;
• The injunction 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 that it faces irreparable harm if the case proceeds now, including being forced to litigate its commission under a contempt label and potentially disclose sensitive business information as part of the process.

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, and 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 also 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 that it is still working to file a formal request for the Supreme Court to review the case. However, it says that if the Supreme Court doesn’t grant a stay, it should treat this application as that request.

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