The US Supreme Court declined Apple’s request today that aimed to momentarily suspend the Epic Games case from going back to the District Court for hearings intended to determine the commission rate it may levy for off-App Store transactions. Below are the specifics.
### A little background
Earlier this week, Apple submitted a petition to the Supreme Court requesting a stay on the Ninth Circuit’s order that sends the Epic Games case back to the District Court.
In its submission, Apple contended that in 2025, it was incorrectly found in contempt of a 2021 injunction concerning off-App Store purchases. At that time, Apple was imposing a 27% commission on off-App Store transactions, as the court’s 2021 ruling did not clarify whether Apple was permitted to impose such fees.
From the verdict, as Apple indicated in its plea to the Supreme Court:
> Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any individual in active collaboration or participation with them (“Apple”), are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from preventing developers from (i) incorporating in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that lead customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers via account registration within the app.
When Apple brought the case to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, the court concluded that Apple was permitted to charge a commission, delegating the determination of the amount to the District Court.
This prompted this week’s application, where Apple requested the Supreme Court to halt the case from returning to the District Court, based on arguments such as:
– The contempt classification is unwarranted, as the 2021 injunction did not address App Store fees;
– This undue contempt classification in the records is unfairly damaging its stance in the remand proceedings;
– The injunction incorrectly extends beyond Epic Games to all developers on the App Store’s U.S. platform.
Apple further noted that with “(r)egulators globally (…) observing this case to establish the commission rate Apple ought to be allowed to charge,” any alleged procedural error or unfavorable ruling against it would adversely affect the company’s prospects for equitable trials elsewhere.
This reasoning was promptly highlighted by Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney as, in his words, validation that “Apple’s ongoing 5 years of delay tactics in the US judiciary – culminating in the Contempt of Court finding against them and the criminal referral for providing false testimony – is clearly aimed at delaying worldwide relief for developers and consumers.”
### Returning to today
Today, the US Supreme Court denied Apple’s plea to postpone the case from returning to the District Court, as Apple prepares a formal motion for the Supreme Court to review the matter.
As reported by Reuters:
> Justice Elena Kagan, representing the court, declined to suspend a ruling from the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that deemed Apple in contempt in the Epic lawsuit challenging App Store fees.
The court’s ruling followed Epic Games’ filing of a response opposing Apple’s application earlier today, arguing that Apple did not demonstrate any irreversible harm, as participation in remand proceedings while seeking Supreme Court review did not warrant a stay.
Epic also contended that further delaying the case would continue to detriment developers and consumers by maintaining ambiguity regarding the commission Apple can impose on linked-out purchases, a point the company also raised to the Ninth Circuit in response to Apple’s request to stay the verdict.
Given the current situation, the pathway is clear for the case to revert to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, with proceedings regarding Apple’s off-App Store commission anticipated to resume soon.
For now, Apple still cannot impose commissions on linked-out purchases until the District Court sanctions a new rate. The company, however, is still expected to request the Supreme Court to engage with the dispute.