Apple Petitions Supreme Court a Second Time Over App Store Fees as Epic Games Contempt Battle Enters Sixth Year
Apple asks the Supreme Court to review a contempt ruling and injunction scope in its Epic Games case, while the Ninth Circuit grants a stay on fee calculations.
Overview
Apple filed a motion on April 3, 2026, asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review its long-running legal battle with Epic Games over App Store payment practices, marking the second time the company has sought the high court’s intervention in the case. The petition challenges both a contempt of court finding and the scope of a 2021 injunction that required Apple to let developers link to external payment options, as reported by TechCrunch.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has granted Apple’s request to pause the fee-calculation process at the district court level while the Supreme Court considers whether to take the case, according to MacRumors. The stay means Apple’s current zero-commission arrangement on purchases made through external links in apps will remain in place for now.
What We Know
The Contempt Finding and Appeals Court Ruling
The dispute traces back to a 2021 injunction issued after the original Epic Games v. Apple trial, which required Apple to allow developers to include links to non-App Store purchase options within their apps. In April 2025, a U.S. District Court found Apple in willful contempt of that injunction after Epic Games argued that Apple had undermined the order by charging a commission on external payments that was close to its standard App Store fee — reportedly in the range of 12 to 27 percent, as reported by TechCrunch.
In December 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals issued a mixed ruling. The appeals court upheld the finding that Apple violated the injunction but questioned the severity of the lower court’s response, according to MacRumors. The panel suggested Apple should be able to charge a “reasonable fee” and instructed the district court to determine what that fee should be.
What Apple Is Challenging
Apple’s petition raises two central questions. First, Apple argues that the original injunction contained no specific wording about commissions and contends the contempt finding was based on a violation of the “spirit” rather than the explicit text of the order, according to MacRumors. Second, Apple challenges whether the injunction should apply to all developers nationwide or only to those directly connected to Epic Games.
The Supreme Court previously declined to hear Apple’s first appeal in January 2024, which challenged the basic requirement to allow external payment links. This second petition addresses the narrower question of fee structures and the contempt process, as reported by Engadget.
Current Status
Apple currently charges zero commission on purchases made through links in apps to external payment systems, after its earlier attempt to impose fees near its standard 30 percent cut was struck down. The stay granted by the Ninth Circuit means the district court’s process to determine a “reasonable” commission is on hold until the Supreme Court decides whether to take the case, as reported by MacRumors.
Epic Games spokesperson Natalie Munoz called Apple’s motion “another delay tactic to prevent the court from establishing significant and permanent bounds on Apple’s ability to charge junk fees on third-party payments,” as reported by TechCrunch.
Broader Context
The petition comes as Apple faces antitrust pressure on multiple fronts. The Department of Justice’s separate monopolization lawsuit against Apple, filed in March 2024, is currently in the discovery phase with Apple subpoenaing Samsung in South Korea as part of its defense. Meanwhile, Epic Games recently reached a settlement with Google over similar app store commission disputes, which saw Fortnite return to the Google Play Store in March 2026, according to Engadget.
Epic Games itself has been under financial strain, having cut over 1,000 jobs in March 2026 amid declining Fortnite engagement.
What We Don’t Know
The most significant unknown is whether the Supreme Court will agree to hear the case. The court receives thousands of petitions annually and accepts fewer than 100. If the justices decline, the Ninth Circuit’s December 2025 ruling stands, and the district court would proceed to set a “reasonable” commission rate — a determination that could reshape the economics of mobile app distribution.
It is also unclear how long the stay will remain in effect. If the Supreme Court denies the petition, Apple would face the fee-setting process it has sought to avoid. If the court accepts the case, oral arguments would likely not occur until early 2027, extending the current zero-commission arrangement further.
The outcome could also influence the trajectory of the DOJ’s broader antitrust case against Apple, which targets the company’s control over the iPhone ecosystem more broadly than the App Store commissions at issue in the Epic Games litigation.