Apple takes Epic commission fight back to the Supreme Court

Apple is taking its fight with Epic Games back to the United States Supreme Court after losing again over a rule that blocks app stores from steering users away from Apple’s payment system. On April 6, 2026, Apple said it would seek Supreme Court review and asked the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit to pause its mandate while that petition is prepared. (techcrunch.com) The move sounds technical, but the practical question is simple: when an iPhone app wants to sell something, who gets to control the checkout lane. Apple has long required many developers to use its in-app payment system and has typically charged up to 30 percent on digital purchases made inside apps. (techcrunch.com) That system became a legal war in August 2020, when Epic Games updated Fortnite to let users pay Epic directly instead of paying through Apple’s in-app purchase system. Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, and Epic sued the same day, turning one game’s payment button into a test case for the economics of the mobile app business. (cnbc.com) In 2021, United States District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers mostly rejected Epic’s federal antitrust claims, which meant Apple avoided being labeled a monopoly under federal law. But the judge also issued an injunction under California unfair competition law that barred Apple from stopping developers from including buttons, links, or other calls to action that direct users to payment options outside the App Store. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) That injunction mattered because it targeted what lawyers call anti-steering rules, which are rules that stop a seller from telling customers where a cheaper checkout exists. In ordinary retail terms, it is like allowing a store to stay open but forbidding it from covering the exit signs that point to another door. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) Apple appealed, Epic appealed, and the case reached the Supreme Court once already. On January 16, 2024, the justices declined to hear either side’s appeal, which left the Ninth Circuit’s earlier ruling in place and forced Apple to live with the anti-steering injunction. (cnbc.com) Apple then changed its App Store rules, but not in the way Epic wanted. Developers could link users to outside payment pages, yet Apple imposed a 27 percent commission on many purchases completed off-app after those links, only slightly below the 30 percent rate tied to Apple’s own in-app system. (techcrunch.com) Epic argued that a 27 percent fee defeated the point of letting developers send users elsewhere, because payment processing costs would still leave little or no savings. In April 2025, the district court agreed, found Apple in civil contempt, and concluded that Apple had violated the 2021 injunction rather than complying with it in good faith. (cravath.com) The Ninth Circuit largely backed that view in a published opinion filed on December 11, 2025. The appeals court said Apple’s 27 percent commission had a prohibitive effect, said Apple’s link-design restrictions also violated the injunction, and declined to vacate the injunction itself. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) Apple asked the Ninth Circuit to rehear that loss and did not get it. By early April 2026, Apple had run out of ordinary options in that court, so it moved to keep the mandate from taking full effect while it prepares a petition asking the Supreme Court to step in again. (techcrunch.com) (courtlistener.com) CourtListener’s docket for the appeal shows the latest known filing on April 6, 2026, and reporting on April 6 said the Ninth Circuit granted Apple’s motion to stay the mandate while Epic challenged that pause. That means the newest development is procedural, not a final Supreme Court ruling on the merits. (courtlistener.com) (techcrunch.com) Apple is expected to argue that the lower courts used the wrong legal standard to hold it in contempt and that courts should not be micromanaging what fee it can charge for services around distribution, discovery, and developer tools. Epic’s position is the opposite: a rule that nominally permits outside payments means little if Apple can tax those payments so heavily that developers still cannot compete on price. (techcrunch.com) For app developers, the case is no longer just about Fortnite or even about one company’s commission rate. It is about whether platform rules, checkout design, link placement, and billing architecture are product choices a company can make freely, or legal obligations a court can rewrite line by line. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) For Apple, the immediate win is time. For the wider app economy, the larger fact is that six years after Epic triggered this fight in 2020, one of the most basic questions in mobile software, who owns the customer relationship at the moment of payment, is still not settled. (cnbc.com) (techcrunch.com)