Supreme Court denies Apple’s stay request; contempt order in Epic Games case remains in force

App Store rules are back in play — again. On May 6, Justice Elena Kagan refused Apple’s emergency request to freeze the latest court order in its fight with Epic Games, so the contempt ruling against Apple stays live for now. That means the case heads back to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland instead of sitting on ice while Apple tries one more Supreme Court appeal. The practical question now is smaller than the original antitrust war, but it may matter more to developers’ wallets: can Apple charge a fee when an app sends users somewhere else to pay? (usnews.com) ### What just happened? Apple asked the Supreme Court on May 4 to stay the Ninth Circuit’s mandate while it prepared a cert petition. Kagan, who handles emergency matters from the Ninth Circuit, denied that request on May 6 without referring it to the full court. That is not a final merits decision on whether the Supreme Court will ever hear the case. But it is a clear loss for Apple right now, because the lower-court process keeps moving. (supremecourt.gov) ### Why is Apple in contempt at all? This goes back to the 2021 injunction from the original Epic trial. Apple had to let developers tell users about alternative ways to pay outside the App Store. Judge Gonzalez Rogers later found that Apple technically complied on paper but undermined the order in practice — most notably by imposing a 27% commission on many outside purchases (supremecourt.gov)vil contempt and said the company had willfully violated the injunction. (lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com) ### What did the appeals court do? The Ninth Circuit mostly backed the contempt ruling. Its opinion said Apple had failed to comply with the injunction and let the core restrictions stand, while sending some issues back for more work on the exact scope of monetary consequences. That is why this has shifted from a giant antitrust case into a more specific fight over what Apple can still charge on purchases that happen outside its own payment rails. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) ### Why is the commission question such a big deal? Because this is the lever that preserves — or breaks — Apple’s old model. If Apple can charge a near-App-Store-level fee even when a developer sends a user to the web, then the “freedom” to link out is mostly cosmetic. If the court says Apple must allow those links with little or no commission, then developers selling subsc(cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov)ut whether Apple controls iPhone commerce through technology, or through pricing. (lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com) ### Why does Epic care so much? Epic’s original goal was never just to win Fortnite back onto iPhones. It wanted to crack open Apple’s control over app distribution and payments. Epic lost the broad federal antitrust case years ago, but it kept pushing on the injunction piece — and turns out that narrower lane has become the more dangerous one for Apple. Epic can now press for rules that make external payments genuinely competitive. (scotusblog.com) ### Does this change the App Store today? In the U.S., the pressure stays on Apple’s current rules because the contempt order remains in force while the remand proceeds. But the exact end state is still unsettled. The district court now has to work through what fees, if any, Apple can lawfully impose on off-app purchases reached through external links. So developers have more leverage than they did last week, but not full certainty yet. (usnews.com) ### Could the Supreme Court still take the case later? Yes. Apple can still file, or pursue, a petition asking the justices to review the Ninth Circuit decision. The catch is that emergency relief was the fast way to stop the lower-court consequences now, and Apple did not get it. So even if the justices eventually take a look, Apple has already lost the pause it wanted most. (supremecourt.gov) ### Bottom line? This is no longer just a symbolic Epic-versus-Apple grudge match. It is a live fight over whether Apple can keep taxing digital purchases after a user leaves the App Store. Kagan’s denial did not finish the case, but it kept the most painful part for Apple moving. (usnews.com)