Apple asks Supreme Court stay in Epic case

Apple is trying to stop the next phase of its fight with Epic Games before it starts. On May 4, Apple filed an emergency application at the Supreme Court asking Justice Elena Kagan to stay the Ninth Circuit’s mandate while Apple prepares a full cert petition. The immediate target is narrow but important — Apple wants to prevent the Northern District of California from moving ahead on the question of what, if anything, Apple can charge when developers send users outside the App Store to pay. (supremecourt.gov) ### What did Apple ask for? Apple asked the Supreme Court to pause the Ninth Circuit’s mandate pending certiorari. In plain English, Apple wants the justices to hit pause before the lower court regains authority to work through remedies tied to the contempt ruling. The application was docketed as 25A1213 and directed to Justice Kagan, who handles emergency matters from the Ninth Circuit. (supremecourt.gov) ### Why is the fight back in court? This is the latest round in the case Epic started in 2020 after Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store. Apple mostly won the original trial in 2021, but Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers also issued an injunction barring Apple from stopping develo(supremecourt.gov)sion on some linked-out purchases and control how those links worked. (supremecourt.gov) ### What changed in April? On April 24, the Ninth Circuit largely left the contempt ruling in place and declined to wipe out the injunction. That matters because the appeals court did not just preserve the finding that Apple had violated the earlier order; it also sent the case back in a way that lets the district court keep dealing with the fee issue. Apple’s new Supreme Court filing is aimed at stopping that handoff. (supremecourt.gov) ### Why does the fee question matter so much? Because this is no longer just about whether developers can add a link. The real money question is whether Apple can still take a cut when a user taps out of the app and pays somewhere else. If the district court ends up shar(supremecourt.gov)pple’s in-app purchase system. (courthousenews.com) ### What is Apple’s argument? Apple says it is being forced to litigate two tracks at once — Supreme Court review of the contempt decision, and district-court proceedings over the proper commission. Apple also argues the lower courts are reaching beyond the original injunction by effectively taking over pricing for transactions that (courthousenews.com)r jurisdictions watching the case. (supremecourt.gov) ### What does Epic think Apple is doing? Epic’s view is simpler — delay. Tim Sweeney has argued that Apple is trying to stall relief that could spread beyond the US. That tracks with the broader stakes here: once courts or regulators establish that a platform cannot punish developers for steering users elsewhere, the old App Store tollbooth model gets harder to defend. (androidheadlines.com) ### Why does this matter beyond Fortnite? Because Apple’s App Store rules are a template for a lot of platform power fights. The question is whether a gatekeeper can say, “Fine, you may leave the store — but you still owe us rent.” That is the hard version of the case. A link-out right without a workable economics rule is barely a right at all. (courthousenews.com) ### Bottom line? This filing does not decide the case. But it decides whether Apple can slow the next decision that really matters — the one about money. If the Supreme Court says no to the stay, Judge Gonzalez Rogers can keep pressing on the off-App-Store commission issue, and that could shape how iPhone apps sell digital goods from here on out. (supremecourt.gov)