The Supreme Court will hear Apple's appeal of a contempt ruling tied to its Epic Games fight, a case that could decide what Apple can charge developers on outside app payments.
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday to hear Apple's appeal of a contempt ruling in its long running antitrust fight with Epic Games, setting up a case that could reshape how much Apple can charge developers for purchases made outside the App Store. The justices are expected to hear arguments during the term that starts in October.
At a Glance
- Supreme Court will review Apple's App Store contempt ruling
- Case stems from Epic Games' 2020 antitrust lawsuit against Apple
- Apple charges a 27 percent commission on outside purchases made within seven days of a link click, versus 30 percent inside the App Store
- U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in civil contempt in 2025
- 9th Circuit upheld that contempt finding in December
How the Dispute Reached This Point
Epic Games, the Cary, North Carolina company behind Fortnite, sued Apple in 2020 over the tight grip Apple keeps on transactions inside apps built for iOS. Epic's complaint targeted both the fees Apple collects and the rules that limit how apps reach consumers in the first place.
Apple came out ahead in most of that original lawsuit, but Judge Gonzalez Rogers, sitting in Oakland, issued an injunction in 2021 that forced a key concession: app developers had to be allowed to place links inside their apps sending users to payment options that bypass Apple's own system entirely.
Apple complied, technically. But it also layered on new terms. Anyone who clicked one of those outside links and completed a purchase within seven days would trigger a 27 percent commission owed to Apple, just three points below the standard 30 percent cut Apple takes on transactions processed through the App Store itself.
Why Epic Cried Foul
Epic went back to court arguing that the 27 percent fee gutted the whole point of the 2021 injunction. If developers still owed Apple nearly the same cut regardless of which payment system customers used, the argument went, the order requiring outside links meant little in practice.
Judge Gonzalez Rogers agreed. In 2025 she found Apple in civil contempt for violating her earlier order. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that contempt finding in December, though it gave Apple an opening: the company can still make fresh arguments in the lower court about what commission rate would actually satisfy the injunction for digital goods bought through apps distributed via the App Store but paid for through third party systems. That process has not started yet in Oakland.
What Apple Is Arguing
Apple denies it violated the judge's order at all. In its filing to the Supreme Court, the company also pushed back on the scope of the injunction, arguing it should not bind millions of developers who were never party to Epic's lawsuit.
<]Apple told the justices the stakes reach well beyond this one case.
