The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday declined to temporarily block an appeals court ruling that found Apple in contempt for how it implemented court-ordered changes to its App Store, forcing the iPhone maker back to the trial judge to argue over what commission it may lawfully charge on certain in-app transactions.
Justice Elena Kagan, speaking for the court, refused Apple's request to pause the decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, leaving in place the appellate court’s finding that Apple violated the injunction issued in litigation brought by Fortnite maker Epic Games. The move compels Apple to return to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, to litigate the appropriate commission rate for purchases made outside the App Store using third-party payment systems.
The contempt dispute stems from a long-running case that Epic began in 2020 seeking to loosen Apple’s control over app distribution and payments on iOS devices. While Apple largely prevailed at trial, Judge Gonzalez Rogers in 2021 enjoined Apple from preventing developers from linking to alternative payment methods outside the App Store. Apple permitted such links but imposed new restrictions — notably a 27% commission on purchases routed to third-party payment systems if made within seven days of a user clicking an external link — compared with the 30% fee it charges for in-App Store transactions.
Epic argued those terms effectively undermined the 2021 injunction. In 2025, Judge Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in civil contempt for violating her order. The 9th Circuit in December upheld the contempt finding but said Apple could present new arguments about what commission it may permissibly charge for digital goods purchased through third-party systems in apps distributed via the App Store.
Related Recipes
Clermont Memorial Day Ceremony Honors Veterans, Recognizes Tuskegee Airman Daniel Keel
Christy Lane Fire Triggers Evacuations in Iron County, Utah as Crews Battle Blaze
American Airlines Faces Record Cancellations at DFW as Memorial Day Storms Roil Travel
Phillies Honor Marine Father of Pitcher Orion Kerkering During Salute to Service Night
Apple had asked the Supreme Court to pause the appellate court’s ruling while it pursued review, arguing the contempt decision should not be applied broadly beyond Epic and warning that the outcome could reverberate for millions of developers and customers worldwide. “Regulators around the world are watching this case to determine what commission rate Apple may charge on covered purchases in huge markets outside the United States,” Apple told the justices in a filing.
Epic and supporters of the injunction have contended that Apple’s 27% fee functions as a disincentive to steering users to alternative payment methods and therefore frustrates the relief the trial court intended. The contempt holding leaves unresolved, at the district-court level, the precise scope of Apple’s post-injunction obligations and the permissible economics of off‑App Store payments — issues that could shape how software makers monetize apps on iOS going forward.
Trending Now
Uncertain AMOC weakening highlights need for intensified ocean monitoring and emissions cuts after 2020 acidification risk finding
D.C. Circuit panel questions Trump administration argument that projects underway are untouchable in White House East Wing ballroom dispute
Paige Bueckers’ 2025 WNBA debut jersey sells for $64,720, a record for women’s game-worn memorabilia
Dua Lipa and Callum Turner Hold Three-Day Sicily Wedding Celebration in Palermo After London Civil Ceremony
With the Supreme Court declining to intercede, Apple must now return to Judge Gonzalez Rogers to argue the fee it can charge without running afoul of the injunction. Any subsequent rulings are likely to trigger further appeals that could eventually bring the dispute back to the high court, and the broader regulatory and market consequences of the case remain under close scrutiny by developers, competitors and international regulators.
Continue Reading
