Apple–Epic: the stay fight

Apple and Epic are back in court over a narrower question than who wins the App Store case: whether a pause on the latest order should keep running. (ca9.uscourts.gov) The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit granted Apple’s motion to stay the mandate on April 6, 2026, after Apple filed that request on April 3. Epic then filed two papers the same day: one opposing the stay and one asking the court to reconsider granting it so quickly. (9to5mac.com; ca9.uscourts.gov; techcrunch.com) Epic told the court it should have had 10 days to respond under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and said it got no notice that the Ninth Circuit would act before that response window closed. Apple answered on April 9, and Epic replied on April 10, leaving the stay fight active as of April 11. (ca9.uscourts.gov; 9to5mac.com; 9to5mac.com) The pause matters because the December 11, 2025 appellate ruling sent the case back toward Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to sort out what limits Apple can still place on links that send iPhone users to pay outside the App Store. Apple is trying to freeze that remand while it prepares a petition to the Supreme Court. (ca9.uscourts.gov; macrumors.com) That underlying fight is about “anti-steering” rules, the App Store terms that control whether developers can point users to buy on the web instead of through Apple’s in-app payment system. In December, the Ninth Circuit said Apple’s 27 percent commission on linked-out purchases had a prohibitive effect and upheld the contempt finding against Apple, even as it reversed some parts of the district court’s broader remedy. (ca9.uscourts.gov) Apple says the stay preserves the current setup and avoids lower-court proceedings that could become unnecessary if the Supreme Court takes the case and reverses. Apple also says it is not charging commissions on linked-out purchases while it seeks Supreme Court review. (9to5mac.com; macrumors.com) Epic says the delay itself is the harm. In its filings, Epic argues developers will keep waiting to build outside-payment links until they know what commission Apple can charge, which means less steering, less competition for Apple’s in-app purchase system, and more time with Apple collecting what Epic calls supracompetitive fees. (ca9.uscourts.gov; 9to5mac.com) The case stretches back to August 2020, when Epic sued after Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store. Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled in 2021 that Apple was not a monopolist under federal antitrust law, but she ordered Apple to let developers include buttons, links, or other calls to action that direct users to payment options outside Apple’s system. (courtlistener.com; ca9.uscourts.gov; techcrunch.com) What happens next is procedural, not final: the Ninth Circuit still has to decide whether its April 6 stay stands, and Apple still has to file the Supreme Court petition it says is coming. Until one of those courts acts, the App Store rules at the center of the case remain in limbo. (9to5mac.com; techcrunch.com)