App Store legal stay dispute

Apple and Epic are fighting over a pause order, not the merits, and that fight is delaying when any new App Store payment rules might actually kick in. (9to5mac.com) On April 6, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Apple’s request to stay its mandate after Apple filed that request on April 3. Epic then filed two motions the same day: one asking the court to reconsider the stay and one opposing Apple’s original request. (9to5mac.com) Epic said the court acted before Epic’s response window had run, while Apple said the stay should remain because Epic had not shown concrete harm from keeping the current setup in place. Apple also said it is not charging commissions on linked-out purchases while it seeks Supreme Court review. (9to5mac.com) The practical issue is what happens while the case heads toward the Supreme Court. Apple wants to freeze the next phase, which could send the dispute back to the Northern District of California to decide what commission, if any, Apple can charge when an app sends users to pay on the web. (techcrunch.com) That question exists because the Ninth Circuit ruled on December 11, 2025 that Apple violated the injunction from the original Epic case. The appeals court said Apple’s 27% commission on external payments had a “prohibitive effect” and that Apple’s link design restrictions also violated the order. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) The underlying injunction dates to the 2021 bench trial, when Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to let developers include buttons, links and other calls to action that direct users to payment options outside the App Store. Apple was not found to be a monopoly in that ruling, but it was barred from blocking those steering tools. (techcrunch.com) After the Supreme Court declined to hear the first round of appeals in 2024, Apple began allowing external payment links but charged developers a 27% commission on many purchases made that way. Epic argued that the fee mostly erased the value of linking out, and the district court later found Apple in contempt. (techcrunch.com) Apple’s current position is that courts should not be setting the price it can charge for access to its platform, developer tools and distribution. Epic’s position is that more delay keeps developers and users from getting the competitive changes the injunction was supposed to deliver. (techcrunch.com; 9to5mac.com) For now, the case is stuck on timing. Until the Ninth Circuit decides whether the stay remains in place, the rules around linking, commissions and App Store enforcement are still being argued over in court instead of settled in the marketplace. (9to5mac.com; macrumors.com)