Apple takes a hit as supreme court refuses to pause Epic ruling

Apple suffered a fresh setback in its long-running legal fight with Epic Games after the U.S. Supreme Court refused to pause a lower court ruling tied to the App Store dispute.

The decision keeps pressure on the iPhone maker as it heads back to federal court over how much it can charge developers for purchases made outside its App Store.

On Wednesday, Justice Elena Kagan, acting on behalf of the Supreme Court, denied Apple’s emergency request to temporarily halt a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That appeals court had upheld a finding that Apple failed to fully comply with an earlier injunction issued in the Epic Games case.

The case began initially after Epic introduced its own payment system in Fortnite, bypassing Apple’s commission fees. This prompted Apple to remove the game from the App Store.

Apple stopped collecting commissions on third-party transactions

Following the original Epic v. Apple case, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers declared last April that Apple deliberately dodged her earlier anti-steering injunctions.

The Ninth Circuit has since sustained that verdict. The appellate panel denied Apple’s bid to suspend the contempt ruling, and the company later petitioned the Supreme Court.

The legal battle dates back to an antitrust lawsuit Epic Games brought against Apple over restrictions on the App Store. Judge Gonzalez ruled that Apple was not permitted to prevent developers from steering users to third-party payment methods.

Later, as previously reported by Cryptopolitan, Apple was found in contempt after the judge found that it had obstructed developers from using third-party payment methods. Moreover, the company charged a steep fee for clicks that led away from its platform. 

On Monday, Apple asked the Supreme Court to intervene and grant a stay; otherwise, it’d be forced to defend its rates under a misleading and harmful contempt label.

The company has reportedly had to forego billions of dollars of commission revenue. Before the contempt ruling, Apple had been collecting a 27% commission on external payments, a mere 3% discount from its standard App Store tax. But since the contempt, the iPhone maker has refrained from collecting commissions on external link transactions for nearly a year. 

Epic Games, for its part, asked the justices not to intervene in the case. It wrote the court: “Apple’s willful contempt has successfully delayed the restoration of competition by more than two years, allowing it to reap billions of dollars in what the Ninth Circuit previously affirmed were supracompetitive fees.” CEO Tim Sweeney even claimed Apple was only trying to delay the process by seeking a stay soon after the appeals court ruling. 

Nonetheless, Justice Elena Kagan rejected Apple’s stay request less than an hour after Epic Games made its opposition public. Apple did not even get a chance to respond.

The current development marks another win for Epic Games CEO, who has spent years challenging Apple’s App Store policies and pushing for more open mobile payment systems. Fortnite returned to the U.S. App Store in 2025 after earlier court victories for Epic.

The case is back in Judge Gonzalez’s hands

With the Supreme Court’s denial, the dispute shifts back to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland. Her court is expected to rule on whether Apple can impose commissions on purchases made through external link redirections.

Earlier, the judge had reached out to the federal attorney’s office about criminal charges and determined that Apple’s top brass lied under oath about complying with the injunction.  

Apple came out on top in the initial 2021 Epic Games trial, a result that held firm after the Supreme Court refused to hear appeals in January 2024.

The firm’s sole defeat was the anti-steering order requiring external payment links, a rule it has challenged in court for 4 years. Wednesday’s ruling, however, forces Apple to obey the lower court’s orders without any further delays. 

Nonetheless, in early April, Apple filed for certiorari and formally asked the Supreme Court to take up the case and review the validity of both the contempt label and the injunction’s scope. Though the cert petition is still pending.