Apple plans to take its legal fight with Epic Games to the United States Supreme Court, seeking review of recent rulings that imposed App Store fee restrictions and found the company in contempt of court.
The dispute stems from the long-running Epic Games vs. Apple case, which challenged Apple’s App Store policies and commission structure. The latest court decisions require Apple to relax certain payment restrictions and have also criticized its compliance with earlier injunctions.
By appealing to the Supreme Court, Apple is attempting to overturn or narrow the scope of these rulings, arguing over how much control it should retain over App Store payments and developer rules.
Apple is escalating its legal battle with Epic Games by asking the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to pause upcoming proceedings that could determine a “reasonable” commission for App Store purchases made via in-app links.
In a filing submitted on April 3 (reported by TechCrunch), Apple argued that it would be unfair and inefficient to have a district court set a new fee structure now, only for the Supreme Court to potentially overturn the ruling later. The company is asking instead to maintain the current setup, where it does not charge any commission on purchases made through external links in apps, until the higher court weighs in.
Apple has not yet formally petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court, and there is no guarantee it will agree to hear the case. The company previously attempted—and failed—to get the Court involved in 2024 when both Apple and Epic requested review of the ongoing dispute.
The legal conflict stems from the long-running antitrust case between Apple and Epic Games, originally decided in 2021. That ruling required Apple to allow developers to direct users to external payment options. However, enforcement of the injunction has led to further disputes over how Apple can regulate or monetize those external links.
In 2025, Apple updated its rules to allow external payment links but imposed commissions ranging from 12% to 27%, which critics argued still discouraged developers from using them. The court later ruled that Apple had willfully violated the injunction by effectively undermining its intent, and barred the company from charging any fee on those external purchases.
Apple appealed and removed the link fees, but the case has continued to evolve. In December 2025, the appeals court upheld that Apple violated the injunction but questioned the severity of the penalty, suggesting a “reasonable fee” could still be considered and sending the issue back to the district court for calculation.
Apple is now seeking to block that next step, arguing the injunction is being expanded beyond its original scope and that contempt findings were based on the “spirit” of the order rather than its exact wording. If the courts do not grant a pause, the district court could begin determining a new fee while Apple simultaneously pursues Supreme Court review.
At this point, the Supreme Court remains the final potential arbiter—but it has already declined to intervene once in the case, leaving the outcome uncertain.