App‑Store legal fight keeps moving

Apple and Epic are back before the Ninth Circuit after dueling April 2026 filings over whether a stay should keep freezing parts of the latest App Store ruling. (ca9.uscourts.gov) On April 6, the appeals court granted Apple’s motion to stay the mandate for 90 days while Apple prepares a petition asking the Supreme Court to hear the case. Epic then asked the court to reconsider, saying Apple had filed on April 3 and Epic’s response time had not yet run. (flawfinder.ai, cdn2.unrealengine.com) Apple’s April 9 opposition says the stay should remain in place while it seeks Supreme Court review. Apple has argued it wants to avoid making another major change to App Store fees before the justices decide whether to take the case. (9to5mac.com, macrumors.com) The fight is about “anti-steering” rules, the App Store policies that control whether developers can point users to pay on the web instead of inside an iPhone app. In 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to let developers include buttons, links, or other calls to action for outside purchases. (ca9.uscourts.gov, techcrunch.com) Apple later allowed those links but charged developers 12% to 27% on linked-out sales, while keeping its usual in-app purchase commission at 15% to 30%. Epic said that structure defeated the point of the injunction, and the district court agreed in an April 30, 2025 contempt ruling. (macrumors.com, news.bloomberglaw.com) In a December 11, 2025 opinion, the Ninth Circuit upheld the contempt finding and said Apple’s 27% commission had a “prohibitive effect” on outside payments. The panel also said Apple’s link-design restrictions violated the injunction, but it reversed part of the lower court’s broader remedy and sent fee questions back down. (ca9.uscourts.gov) That remand is one reason the stay matters now. Apple says the district court should not set a new commission framework while Apple is trying to get Supreme Court review, while Epic says the pause keeps developers from investing in outside-payment links because the rules could change again. (macrumors.com, cdn2.unrealengine.com) Epic told the court that “the vast majority of developers” are still reluctant to build steering links without certainty on what Apple can charge. Apple has said its fee covers App Store services such as hosting, discovery, and developer tools, not just payment processing. (cdn2.unrealengine.com, techcrunch.com) The same case has been running since 2020, when Epic added its own payment option inside Fortnite to bypass Apple’s system and Apple removed the game from the App Store. The Supreme Court already declined to hear an earlier round of the dispute in 2024, and Apple is now trying again on the contempt issues. (techcrunch.com, courtlistener.com) For now, the legal question is narrower than the original monopoly fight but more immediate for developers: whether Apple can keep the current pause while it asks the Supreme Court to step in. Until the courts answer that, the rules for selling digital goods from iPhone apps remain unsettled. (9to5mac.com, ca9.uscourts.gov)