On May 6 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to temporarily block a judicial order that held Apple in contempt for actions taken after a court-mandated change to its App Store policies in the long-running antitrust fight with Epic Games.
Justice Elena Kagan, speaking for the Court, refused to stay the decision of the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found Apple in contempt in the Epic Games litigation challenging App Store fees and distribution rules. Apple had asked the high court to pause the lower-court ruling to allow time to lodge a full Supreme Court appeal of the 9th Circuit’s decision.
The contempt determination is the most recent development in a multi-year clash between Apple and Epic over how developers can route purchases and what fees Apple may charge for transactions involving its iOS platform. Although Epic did not prevail on all claims, the companies have repeatedly returned to court over how to implement and interpret judicial orders affecting App Store operations.
Epic originally sued in 2020 seeking relief that would loosen Apple’s control over in-app transactions and distribution of apps on iOS. A 2021 injunction ordered Apple to allow developers to include links in their apps that direct users to payment methods outside the App Store. Apple complied with the link requirement but imposed conditions on how those links could be used and on the fees developers would face for purchases made via outside payment systems.
Under Apple’s post-injunction framework, developers may include links to external payment options but Apple applied a number of restrictions and a new fee structure that differs from its in-App Store commissions. Apple continued to collect a 30% commission on purchases processed through the App Store. For purchases made through third-party payment systems after a user followed a permitted link, Apple imposed what amounts to a 27% commission if the external payment occurred within seven days of a user clicking the link.
Epic contended that Apple’s imposition of the 27% charge violated the 2021 injunction. In 2025, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers determined Apple was in civil contempt for violating the injunction. The 9th Circuit, in a December decision, upheld the contempt finding but permitted Apple the opportunity to present new arguments about what commission it should be permitted to charge for digital goods bought in apps distributed through the App Store but paid for via third-party systems.
Apple has consistently denied breaching the injunction and has argued that the court order should not be expanded to cover millions of developers beyond Epic Games. In a filing to the Supreme Court, Apple warned that "Regulators around the world are watching this case to determine what commission rate Apple may charge on covered purchases in huge markets outside the United States."
Epic pushed back in filings, arguing the company should not be allowed to evade the judge’s original injunction. Epic said that permitting such a delay would "give Apple more time to continue unfairly profiting at the expense of consumers and app developers."
With the Supreme Court's refusal to stay the contempt ruling, the lower-court determinations remain in effect while the parties weigh their next legal moves. The dispute continues to raise questions about the scope of the 2021 order, how commissions should be applied to off-App-Store payments, and which developers are covered by the injunction's requirements.
Background:
- Epic sued Apple in 2020 seeking expanded freedoms for developers and alternative payment routing on iOS.
- A 2021 injunction required Apple to allow developers to place links to external payment systems.
- Apple implemented link allowances plus a 27% fee on some external payments, while retaining a 30% in-App Store commission.
- Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in civil contempt in 2025; the 9th Circuit upheld that finding in December but left room for new arguments on commission rates.