Apple asks Supreme Court stay
- Apple asked Justice Elena Kagan on May 4 to freeze a Ninth Circuit mandate that would send its Epic Games fight back to trial court. - The fight now centers on Apple’s fee for purchases made outside apps—after a contempt ruling over link-out payments—and on whether that mandate pauses. - In parallel, Google’s $700 million Play settlement just won final approval, adding pressure on app-store tolls across both mobile ecosystems.
App stores are back in court again — and this time the fight is about what platform owners can still charge when developers route users around the store. On May 4, Apple asked the U.S. Supreme Court to pause a Ninth Circuit mandate in its long-running case with Epic Games. The immediate problem for Apple is simple: without a stay, the case heads back to district court to sort out what Apple can charge on purchases that happen outside the App Store. At almost the same moment, Google’s separate $700 million Android app-store settlement cleared final approval, which makes the broader pressure on store fees a lot harder to ignore. (scotusblog.com) ### What did Apple actually ask for? Apple filed an application directed to Justice Elena Kagan, the circuit justice for the Ninth Circuit, asking the Supreme Court to stay the mandate while Apple prepares a cert petition. The ask is narrow but important — Apple wants to stop the lower-court process from restarting before the justices decide whether they even want to (scotusblog.com)026. (supremecourt.gov) ### What is the mandate about? This is the spillover from the Epic case and the later contempt fight. The Ninth Circuit left in place a district-court ruling that held Apple in civil contempt over how it handled an injunction tied to App Store steering rules. The core dispute is Appl(supremecourt.gov)t could respond to link-out payments with the same kind of toll structure and restrictions it had been using. (scotusblog.com) ### Why does Apple care so much about a pause? Because procedure becomes leverage. If the mandate issues now, Apple is back in district court quickly, and that court can start working through what fee structure — if any — survives for off-app purchases. Apple argues in its filing that it faces irreparable harm without a stay. That is legal language, but the business m(scotusblog.com)iendlier terms, that revenue may not come back cleanly even if Apple later wins something on appeal. (supremecourt.gov) ### Why is Epic such a big deal here? Because Epic turned a narrow anti-steering fight into a direct attack on the economics of the App Store. Apple can still run the store, review apps, and charge for in-app purchases processed inside its system. But the contested edge is where a de(supremecourt.gov)oll road and more like a gateway with weaker pricing power. That is the real stakes question. (scotusblog.com) ### Where does Google fit in? Google’s case is different, but the theme rhymes. A federal court just granted final approval to the multistate Google Play settlement first announced in 2023. The settlement totals $700 million — roughly $630 million for consumers and $70 million for states — and includes conduct remedies aimed at opening Android app distribution and bil(scotusblog.com)torneys general and covers all 50 states, D.C., Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands. (courthousenews.com) ### Are Apple and Google facing the same legal threat? Not exactly. Apple is fighting over contempt, injunction scope, and what happens to outside-payment fees after the Epic rulings. Google just locked in a settlement over Play Store conduct. But both point the same way — courts and regulators are less willing to let(courthousenews.com) commissions disappear. It does mean the old assumption that those tolls are untouchable looks weaker than it did a few years ago. (scotusblog.com) ### Why should anyone outside tech care? Because this is really about who gets the margin — the platform or the developer. If Apple and Google have less room to force billing through their own rails or charge on outside transactions, some of that money can shift to app makers, subscription businesses, and maybe users. The catch is that platforms will keep looking for (scotusblog.com)d of the toll fight. It is the next round. (supremecourt.gov) ### Bottom line? Apple’s May 4 filing is a defensive move, but an important one. It is trying to stop a lower court from setting the practical terms of off-app payments before the Supreme Court decides whether to step in. And with Google’s Play settlement now finally approved, the bigger story is clear — the legal system is pressing harder on app-store gatekeeping than either platform would like. (scotusblog.com)
