Author: sparta

Epic Games has successfully convinced the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to overturn a prior decision that had temporarily halted the enforcement of a ruling requiring Apple to change certain App Store regulations. This ruling is crucial as it relates to Apple’s policies on alternative payment options within its App Store.

Earlier in April 2026, the Ninth Circuit had granted Apple a stay on a ruling that required the company to ease its App Store policies. Epic Games reacted by submitting two motions: one claiming it lacked adequate time to prepare a response to Apple’s stay request, and another urging the court to outright deny Apple’s request. Epic described Apple’s motion as a stalling tactic designed to inhibit the establishment of clear limits on Apple’s power to impose fees on third-party transactions.

In response, Apple argued that keeping the stay in place would avert unnecessary lower-court proceedings while it aimed for a Supreme Court review. Epic countered this, claiming that Apple had not presented a compelling justification for the stay and that the Supreme Court’s involvement would not negate the need for subsequent lower court hearings.

On April 29, 2026, the Ninth Circuit reversed its previous decision, approving Epic’s motion for reconsideration. The court found Epic’s arguments convincing, particularly the assertion that Apple failed to demonstrate a likelihood that the Supreme Court would take up the case or overturn the prior ruling. The court noted that Apple did not prove that remand proceedings would inflict irreparable harm on it.

The court’s ruling cited Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d), which mandates that a party seeking a stay must demonstrate that the petition raises a substantial question and that there is good cause for the stay. The court concluded that Apple did not satisfy these conditions.

Following the judgment, Epic Games took to social media to assert that Apple’s practices of imposing fees on purchases made outside the App Store harm both consumers and developers, and violate the law. Epic’s CEO, Tim Sweeney, highlighted that the case would return to Judge Gonzales Rogers for hearings concerning the fees Apple may charge for reviewing apps that employ competing payment methods.

This development signifies a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal confrontation between Epic Games and Apple, with possible ramifications for the future of app distribution and payment processing on mobile platforms.