Supreme Court Denies Apple’s Request in Epic Games Lawsuit
On Wednesday, the U.S. Supreme Court denied Apple’s request to temporarily halt a judicial order related to its App Store practices. This order comes from an ongoing antitrust lawsuit initiated by Epic Games, the creator of “Fortnite.”
Justice Elena Kagan, speaking on behalf of the court, turned down Apple’s motion to stall a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that found the company in contempt over the Epic lawsuit. Apple argued for a postponement to give itself time to mount an appeal to the Supreme Court regarding the Ninth Circuit’s decision.
This Supreme Court case means Apple will head back to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, to discuss the legal fees it can charge for certain app-related transactions. Apple’s objective with its Supreme Court challenge was to delay the return to the trial court while it navigates legal hurdles.
The ongoing dispute between Apple and Epic spans several years and centers around the regulations governing Apple’s App Store. The contempt ruling and the conditions set forth by the court represent the most recent developments that the Supreme Court must address. Apple contends that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling could significantly impact how millions of apps are bought.
Epic Games secured a contempt order in the previous year as part of its 2020 lawsuit aimed at reducing Apple’s control over apps utilizing its iOS system and easing restrictions on how apps reach consumers.
Though Apple narrowly avoided a total loss in the Epic suit, a 2021 court injunction mandated that the company permit developers to include links in their apps that guide users to payment systems other than Apple’s.
While Apple complied by permitting these links, it introduced new conditions that included a 27% fee for transactions conducted via alternative payment methods within a week of using the link. The standard fee for purchases within the App Store remains at 30%.
Epic contended that this 27% charge violates the prior injunction. In 2025, Judge Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in civil contempt due to this infringement.
In December, the Ninth Circuit upheld this contempt finding but allowed Apple to present fresh arguments concerning what fees it could impose for digital goods purchased through apps using third-party payment methods.
Apple has denied breaching the judge’s order, asserting that the injunction should not extend to countless developers who are not part of the Epic Games case.
Apple stated, “Regulators globally are closely watching this case to assess commission rates Apple will implement on qualifying purchases in significant markets outside the U.S.” in its filing with the Supreme Court.
Epic insisted that Apple must not be allowed to circumvent the judge’s initial injunction, arguing that doing so would essentially enable Apple to continue profiting at the expense of both consumers and app developers.
