Apple, Epic set pre-court schedule

Apple Inc. and Epic Games have moved into a new court-supervised phase of their fight over App Store payments after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to pause the case on May 6. A May 15 filing described by AppleInsider said the companies agreed to a schedule for briefing and negotiations before returning to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers. The next phase is narrower than the original antitrust trial. It is focused on what, if anything, Apple can charge when iPhone app developers send users to pay outside the App Store. ### What exactly did Apple and Epic agree to file? A May 15 proposed schedule filed in the Northern District of California set out a timetable for the parties to discuss new fee proposals before the court takes up the issue again, according to AppleInsider. CourtListener shows the case, Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., had a last known filing date of May 14 and remains before Judge Gonzalez Rogers. (appleinsider.com) The filing follows the Supreme Court’s May 6 denial of Apple’s emergency request to halt the Ninth Circuit mandate. Justice Elena Kagan denied the application in Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc., docket 25A1213, allowing the case to return to district court. ### Why is the court back on App Store commissions now? The December 11, 2025 Ninth Circuit ruling upheld the finding that Apple violated a 2021 injunction that barred it from stopping developers from directing users to outside purchasing options. (appleinsider.com) The appeals court said Apple’s 27% commission on certain purchases made after a user clicked an external link had a “prohibitive effect” and violated the injunction. (supremecourt.gov) The 2021 injunction came out of Epic’s antitrust case over Apple’s control of app distribution and payments on iOS. Apple won most of that broader case, but the injunction required it to let developers include links to non-Apple payment methods. Reuters reported on May 6 that the contempt ruling and the scope of Apple’s obligations are the latest issues to reach the Supreme Court. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) ### What fees were at issue before this new schedule? In January 2024, Apple revised its U.S. App Store rules to allow external purchase links while still charging commissions on some transactions. Those terms set the fee at 27% for many developers and 12% for developers in the App Store Small Business Program, with the commission applying to purchases made within seven days after a user tapped the external link. (cnbc.com) Apple’s Small Business Program separately says qualifying in-app purchase transactions carry a 12% commission rate. That lower rate became part of the outside-link dispute because Apple applied a similar percentage to some developers using external purchase links. ### What did the Supreme Court refuse to do on May 6? The Supreme Court did not decide the final commission rate. (9to5mac.com) Justice Kagan denied Apple’s request to temporarily block the lower-court order while Apple pursued a broader appeal, according to Reuters and the Supreme Court docket. (developer.apple.com) Apple had told the court that the Ninth Circuit decision could affect how millions of app purchases are made. Epic argued Apple should not get more time to keep collecting fees that Epic says violate the injunction, according to Reuters’ May 6 report. ### What is Judge Gonzalez Rogers expected to decide next? (usnews.com) The district court’s next task is to determine the terms Apple can impose on purchases made outside the App Store but initiated from apps distributed through it. CNBC, citing the May 6 proceedings, reported that the case was set to return to district court for proceedings to calculate how much commission Apple can charge for off-App Store transactions. (cnbc.com) That means the coming filings are expected to focus on a specific pricing question, not a rerun of the full Epic v. Apple trial. The docket in the Northern District of California remains the place to watch for the next scheduling and briefing entries involving Apple, Epic and Judge Gonzalez Rogers. (courtlistener.com) (cnbc.com)