Apple asks Supreme Court pause
- Apple asked the Supreme Court on May 4 to freeze the next phase of its Epic fight, after the Ninth Circuit revived a mandate over off-app fees. - The fight now turns on Apple’s old 27% charge for purchases completed outside the App Store — the fee Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers barred. - Brazil matters because Apple is also wiring iOS 26.5 for alternative app distribution there, widening pressure on its App Store model.
Apple’s App Store fight just got more complicated — and more global. On Monday, May 4, Apple asked the U.S. Supreme Court to pause a lower-court mandate in its long-running case with Epic Games while it prepares a full appeal. The immediate issue sounds narrow, but it isn’t. It’s about whether Apple can still collect money when an iPhone app sends a user somewhere else to pay — and whether courts and regulators in multiple countries are now forcing the same basic crack in Apple’s business model. (scotusblog.com) ### What did Apple ask for? Apple filed an emergency application directed to Justice Elena Kagan asking the Supreme Court to stay the Ninth Circuit’s mandate. That mandate was set to issue on May 5, 2026, and would send the case back down for more proceedings over what, if anything, Apple can charge on purchases completed outside the App Store. Apple is basi(scotusblog.com)review the contempt ruling itself. (scotusblog.com) ### Why is this about “outside” payments? Back in 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to let developers steer users to other ways to pay. Apple complied in form, but then added rules and a commission structure that Epic said gutted the point of the injunction. The flashpoint was Apple’s 27% fee on certain purchases made through external links ra(scotusblog.com)the letter while defeating the substance. (cravath.com) ### What did the court do to Apple? In April 2025, Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple had willfully violated the 2021 injunction and held the company in civil contempt. She barred Apple from enforcing the new restrictions and fees tied to those external purchase links, ordered sanctions tied to special-master(cravath.com)e case — it stopped being a normal compliance fight and became a sanctions fight. (cravath.com) ### Why is the Supreme Court involved now? Because the Ninth Circuit had briefly paused its mandate, then reversed itself in late April 2026 after Epic sought reconsideration. Once that pause disappeared, Apple had to choose: let the district court restart and potentially set a commission framework now, or (cravath.com)mpt and broader injunction rules. (9to5mac.com) ### Where does Brazil fit in? Brazil is the second front. Apple agreed in late 2025 to settle with CADE, Brazil’s antitrust authority, and accept changes that include alternative app distribution, external payment links, and third-party payment options alongside Apple’s own system. Apple got up to 105 days to imple(9to5mac.com)more like the EU than like Apple’s old closed model. (9to5mac.com) ### Is iOS 26.5 actually setting that up? Looks like yes — at least the plumbing. The iOS 26.5 release candidate adds Brazil to the regions where Apple’s software appears ready to support sideloading or alternative marketplaces, though server-side switches and exact rules still seem unfinished. So even if the U.S. case i(9to5mac.com)ibute apps and take payments with less App Store dependence. (9to5mac.com) ### Why does this matter beyond Apple and Epic? Because the real argument is no longer just Fortnite nostalgia or one judge’s patience. It’s whether Apple can preserve its commission economics after being forced to allow exits. If courts say no in the U.S. and regulators say no in Brazil, the company may still control iPhone softwar(9to5mac.com)r to defend. (supremecourt.gov) ### Bottom line Apple is asking the Supreme Court for breathing room. But the pressure is coming from two directions at once — U.S. courts on anti-steering fees, and Brazil on alternative app distribution. Even if Apple wins delay, the bigger shift is already underway. (scotusblog.com)
