Apple asks Supreme Court stay

Apple’s latest move in the Epic Games fight is not about winning the whole case tomorrow. It is about buying time. On May 4, Apple asked the Supreme Court to pause the Ninth Circuit’s mandate so the case does not drop back into the trial court while Apple tries to get the justices to hear its appeal. (scotusblog.com) ### What is Apple asking for? Apple wants a stay — basically a legal freeze. If the Supreme Court grants it, the lower court cannot move ahead on the next question, which is what Apple is allowed to charge when an iPhone app sends users to pay outside the App Store. Apple framed that as a narrow request about procedure, not a final ruling on the merits. (suprem([scotusblog.com)515930_2026-05-04%20Apple-Epic%20SCT%20Application%20to%20Stay%20Mandate.pdf)) ### Why is this still about external links? Back in 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to stop blocking developers from telling users about other payment options. The idea was simple — if an app wants to link users to a website to buy digital goods, Apple cannot s(supremecourt.gov)utside purchases. (supremecourt.gov) ### What did the lower court say Apple did wrong? The district court said Apple did not just comply badly — it willfully violated the injunction. The order zeroed in on Apple’s External Link Account setup, including a 27% commission on some web purchases, restrictions around ho(supremecourt.gov)prosecutors over possible criminal contempt issues tied to the company’s conduct in the proceedings. (cdn.arstechnica.net) ### Where does the 27% number come from? That number matters because it showed Apple was still trying to take nearly the full App Store cut even when the transaction happened elsewhere. Apple’s normal digital-goods commission was often 30%, so 27% looked less like a new market arrangement and more like a workaround. That is a big reason the court treated the policy as defiance, not compliance. (cdn.arstechnica.net) ### Didn’t Apple already get a pause once? Yes — briefly. The Ninth Circuit had granted Apple a stay, then reversed course in late April 2026. That reversal meant the case could head back to the Northern District of California to work out what fee, if any, Apple can charge on purchases made through outside links. Apple is now asking the Supreme Court to put that pause back in place. (macrumors.com) ### Why does Apple care so much about timing? Because fighting on two fronts is messy. Apple is trying to convince the Supreme Court to review the contempt ruling while also avoiding a fresh district-court process that could produce new limits on its fees before the justices even decide whether to take the case. From Apple’s perspective, that risks being forced to change the rules twice. (9to5mac.com) ### What does this mean for developers right now? The practical answer is uncertainty. Developers have more room than they used to have to direct users outside Apple’s payment system, but the long-term economics are still unsettled because the courts have not finished defining what Apple can charge for that traffic. So the legal right to link out is clearer than the business rules around it. (courthousenews.com) ### Bottom line This is the same App Store fight, but narrowed to one brutal question — can Apple still collect a toll when a purchase happens somewhere else? Apple just asked the Supreme Court to slow that answer down. Epic wants the courts to lock it in now. (scotusblog.com)