Apple sues Epic again in App Store fight

Apple has taken its App Store fight with Epic Games back to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to narrow the reach of an injunction that now governs how developers can steer users to pay outside Apple’s system. The filing, made on May 21, also asks the court to review a lower-court contempt ruling tied to Apple’s response to the injunction. The move extends a dispute that began in 2020 after Epic bypassed Apple’s in-app payment system in Fortnite and Apple removed the game from the App Store. Apple’s latest argument is that Epic’s case should not be used to rewrite rules for all U.S. App Store developers. ### What did Apple ask the Supreme Court to do this time? Apple’s May 21 petition asks the Supreme Court to review two issues: whether Apple could be held in civil contempt for charging a commission on purchases made outside the App Store, and whether the injunction should extend beyond Epic itself. Apple says the original 2021 order barred it from stopping developers from including buttons, links or other calls to action to outside payment options, but did not expressly prohibit commissions on those transactions. (9to5mac.com) TechCrunch, citing Apple’s petition, reported that Apple argued Epic “never brought a class action” and did not show why relief for Epic required an order affecting other developers, including Microsoft and Spotify. That goes to the scope of the remedy, not just the fee dispute. ### Why is Apple still fighting over commissions if it already changed the rules? (9to5mac.com) The 2021 injunction let developers direct users to alternative payment methods outside Apple’s in-app purchase system. Apple later changed its U.S. rules to allow those links, but it also imposed restrictions and fees on outside purchases. Epic challenged that response, and a federal district court found Apple in contempt, concluding the company had not complied with the injunction. (techcrunch.com) The Ninth Circuit then gave Apple a partial win and a partial loss. It reversed the district court’s outright ban on any commission, but upheld the underlying contempt finding and sent the case back for further proceedings on what commission, if any, Apple can charge on purchases completed outside the App Store. (9to5mac.com) ### What is Apple’s argument about broader App Store rules? Apple’s filing says Epic’s lawsuit was about Epic’s own claims, not a class of all developers using the U.S. App Store. In Apple’s telling, a court should not use Epic’s case to impose platform-wide rules on companies that were not parties to the litigation. Apple framed that as a limit on equitable relief, arguing that the injunction should be tailored to the harm proved by Epic. (9to5mac.com) Epic has rejected that framing. TechCrunch reported that Epic called Apple’s latest filing “one last Hail Mary to delay a conclusion to this case and avoid opening up the gates to payment competition for the benefit of consumers.” ### Where does Fortnite fit into this latest phase? Fortnite returned to the App Store globally this week, except in Australia, as Epic signaled that it believed the courts would not let Apple preserve its outside-payment fee structure in its current form. (techcrunch.com) The game’s return did not end the litigation; it arrived while Apple was still seeking Supreme Court review and while lower-court proceedings remained active. The original dispute began in 2020, when Epic used a server-side update to bypass Apple’s in-app purchase system inside Fortnite after the app had passed review. Apple removed the game, and Epic sued the same day. ### What happens next in court? Justice Elena Kagan denied Apple’s separate application for a stay on May 6, according to the Supreme Court docket. (macrumors.com) That means the district court can keep moving on the remanded question of what commission Apple may charge for purchases made outside the App Store while the justices consider whether to take up Apple’s broader petition. (9to5mac.com) The Ninth Circuit case, docketed as 25-2935, shows the latest known filing on April 28, 2026, and the Supreme Court stay docket identifies Apple as the applicant and Epic as the respondent. The next concrete milestone is whether the Supreme Court asks for a response to Apple’s new petition or declines review, while the Northern District of California proceeds with the commission phase. (courtlistener.com) (supremecourt.gov)