Apple has taken the next step in its prolonged legal fight with Epic Games, filing a motion that signals its intention to seek Supreme Court review of a recent Ninth Circuit decision that went against the company. The move comes after the appeals court unanimously denied Apple’s requests for a rehearing, leaving the tech giant with few remaining options short of the nation’s highest court.
The dispute centers on Apple’s App Store policies and a 2021 court order that required the company to allow developers to direct users to external payment options. Years later, the court found Apple in contempt, ruling that its 27% commission on those external purchases undermined the original injunction. The remedy was expanded to apply to all U.S. developers, not just Epic, a scope Apple now argues exceeds the court’s authority.
In its latest filing, Apple contends that the broadened injunction goes beyond what courts are permitted to enforce in this type of antitrust case. The company is also seeking a stay of the ruling to pause any required changes to its App Store practices while it prepares its petition to the Supreme Court. The Ninth Circuit granted that stay, temporarily halting enforcement of the order.
Epic responded quickly, filing two motions: one asking the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its decision to grant the stay, arguing it was issued prematurely under federal appellate rules, and another formally opposing Apple’s original request. In its opposition, Epic described Apple’s motion as “another delay tactic” designed to prevent the court from establishing permanent limits on Apple’s ability to charge what it calls “junk fees” on third-party payments.
“Courts have time and time again found this to be illegal,” said Epic spokesperson Natalie Munoz in a statement. “Epic has heard this directly from many developers in our efforts to offer Web Shops and similar features to them in competition with Apple. As a result of Apple’s tactics, only a few brave developers including Spotify, Kindle, and Patreon, have been willing to take advantage of this right and bring benefits to consumers.”
The Epic vs. Apple saga began in 2020 when Epic intentionally violated Apple’s in-app purchase rules by offering a direct payment option inside Fortnite, triggering a high-profile lawsuit. The 2021 trial resulted in a mixed outcome: the court largely sided with Apple on antitrust claims but ordered the company to allow external payment links. Apple appealed, and the case has been winding its way through the courts ever since.
The Ninth Circuit’s latest decision upheld the lower court’s findings on the contempt issue and expanded the remedy to all U.S. developers. Apple views this as an overreach, arguing it effectively rewrites the App Store’s business model without sufficient legal justification. Epic, meanwhile, sees the ruling as a long-overdue check on what it considers anticompetitive practices that stifle innovation and raise costs for consumers.
The Supreme Court previously declined to hear Apple’s earlier appeal in the case in January 2024. Apple’s new motion suggests it believes the recent Ninth Circuit ruling raises fresh legal questions worthy of the high court’s attention, particularly around the scope of injunctive relief in antitrust disputes.
If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it could have far-reaching implications for app store policies across the industry. A decision in Apple’s favor might reinforce its ability to maintain strict control over in-app payments and commissions. A ruling supporting Epic could open the door for more widespread external payment options, potentially lowering costs for developers and consumers while increasing competition.
The ongoing battle has already influenced industry behavior. Several major developers, including Spotify, have implemented external purchase links where permitted, though many others have been cautious due to Apple’s aggressive enforcement and the uncertainty created by the prolonged litigation.
For consumers, the case touches on the everyday experience of buying digital goods. Apple’s 30% (later reduced to 27% in some cases) commission has long been criticized as excessive, with opponents arguing it inflates prices for apps, in-app purchases, and subscriptions. Proponents of Apple’s model point to the security, privacy, and ecosystem benefits the App Store provides, arguing that the commission is necessary to fund those services.
Apple’s decision to pursue Supreme Court review is consistent with its long-term defense of the App Store as a curated, secure platform. The company has repeatedly argued that its policies protect users from malware, fraud, and poor-quality apps while ensuring developers have a reliable distribution channel.
By requesting a stay, Apple aims to maintain the status quo while the appeal process unfolds. If the stay remains in place, developers will continue operating under current App Store rules until the Supreme Court either declines the case or issues a final decision.
Epic’s motions to reconsider and oppose the stay reflect its frustration with what it sees as Apple’s pattern of delay. The company has consistently pushed for faster enforcement of the court’s orders, arguing that every month of delay allows Apple to continue collecting allegedly anticompetitive fees.
The Epic-Apple case has become a bellwether for app store competition worldwide. Similar disputes have played out in Europe, where regulators have forced Apple to open its ecosystem under the Digital Markets Act, and in other jurisdictions exploring antitrust action against dominant app store operators.
A Supreme Court decision could influence how other countries approach app store regulation and set a precedent for how courts handle remedies in technology antitrust cases. It could also affect how platforms like Google’s Play Store structure their policies, as many of the same issues apply across the mobile ecosystem.
For now, the legal battle continues. Apple’s motion keeps the case alive at the appellate level, while Epic’s responses aim to prevent further delays. The Ninth Circuit’s decision to grant the stay gives Apple breathing room, but the clock is ticking on how long that protection will last.
The case has already reshaped parts of the App Store, with external purchase links now permitted in certain circumstances. Whether those changes become permanent and more widespread may ultimately rest with the Supreme Court if it chooses to take up the matter.
As the saga enters what could be its final chapter, both companies remain locked in a high-stakes fight over control of the mobile app economy. For developers and consumers, the outcome could determine how digital goods are bought and sold for years to come.