Apple asks Supreme Court stay
- Apple asked the Supreme Court on May 4 to freeze the Ninth Circuit’s mandate in its Epic fight while it prepares a full appeal. - The immediate fight is over Apple’s fee on purchases made outside the App Store — 27% before, now headed back to court. - This matters because Apple is trying to slow rule changes in both the U.S. and Europe at the same time.
Apple is trying to hit pause. On May 4, it asked the Supreme Court for an emergency stay in the Epic Games case, hoping to stop the Ninth Circuit from sending the dispute back to the trial court while Apple seeks further review. That sounds procedural, but the money question is simple: can Apple charge developers a commission when an iPhone app sends users out to the web to pay? The latest appeals ruling kept the contempt finding against Apple in place, but narrowed one part of the remedy and sent the fee question back down for more work. ### What is Apple asking for? Apple wants the justices to stay the Ninth Circuit’s mandate — basically, to stop the lower-court machinery from moving while Apple asks the Supreme Court to take the case. If the Court says yes, the district court would not immediately start recalculating what Apple can charge on linked-out purchases. ### Why is this still about Epic? Because Epic’s 2020 lawsuit turned into the test case for how much control Apple gets over the iPhone app economy. Apple mostly won the original antitrust fight, but it lost on one key point: a 2021 injunction said Apple could not block developers from steering users to other payment options. ### So what did Apple do wrong? The district judge said Apple complied in form but not in substance. Apple allowed links out, but then put conditions on them and charged a 27% commission on many purchases made off-app. The Ninth Circuit agreed that Apple violated the injunction at all. ### Why does the stay matter so much? Because without it, the case moves from the abstract to the expensive part. The lower court would have to decide what fee, if any, Apple can lawfully take on those web purchases. That is not just a legal cleanup exercise — it goes straight to one of Apple’s most defended revenue streams. ### Where does Europe fit in? At almost the same moment, Apple is also escalating its argument against the EU’s Digital Markets Act. Kyle Andeer, Apple’s vice president for products and regulatory law, argued that the law forces Apple to share technology in ways that weaken privacy, security, and product quality. ### Why connect these two fights? Because they are really the same fight in two arenas. In the U.S., Apple is resisting limits on App Store payment control. In Europe, it is resisting rules that force more interoperability and openness. Different laws, though, have real costs. ### What happens next? The emergency application first goes to Justice Elena Kagan, who handles requests from the Ninth Circuit. She can act alone or refer it to the full Court. If the stay is denied, the district court fight over off-app commissions starts moving again right away. ### Bottom line Apple is not just defending one fee. It is trying to preserve the idea that the company, not developers or regulators, gets to set the basic rules of the iPhone marketplace. The Supreme Court stay request is a delay tactic, sure — but also a signal that Apple sees this as a foundational fight.
