Apple is gearing up to bring its protracted legal feud with Epic Games before the U.S. Supreme Court. In a recent filing, the company announced its intent to seek review of a contempt ruling related to App Store fees, while simultaneously requesting a pause on the appeals court’s decision that restricts its ability to impose charges on external payments. On April 6, the court granted Apple’s motion for a stay, prompting an immediate challenge from Epic Games.
This conflict traces back to 2020, when Epic Games, the creator of Fortnite, integrated external payment options into its app to circumvent Apple’s standard 30% commission. In 2021, a court ruled that Apple was not a monopoly but mandated that developers be permitted to link to alternative payment systems. Apple appealed this aspect to the Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case, leaving the Ninth Circuit Court’s ruling intact.
In response, Apple began allowing external payments but imposed a 27% commission on purchases made through these systems—a mere 3% reduction from its usual rate. Epic Games contested this fee, arguing it violated the court order and failed to yield savings for developers due to additional payment processing costs. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California sided with Epic, finding Apple in contempt, a decision upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2025.
The appeals court stated that Apple’s 27% fee effectively nullified the purpose of permitting external payments, though it did not propose an alternative rate. This matter was remanded to a lower court for further determination. Apple’s subsequent request for a rehearing was denied in March 2026, exhausting its options within the Ninth Circuit and prompting the move to the Supreme Court.
If the Supreme Court agrees to take the case, Apple plans to challenge the legal standards underpinning the contempt finding. The company aims to argue that courts should not have the authority to cap fees for its services, maintaining that the 27% commission covers not just payment processing but also hosting, discovery, software, and developer tools. Apple contends this fee reflects the value of its App Store ecosystem.
However, the Supreme Court’s prior refusal to hear Apple’s appeal on a different facet of the case suggests it may reject this petition as well. The outcome could significantly impact Apple’s App Store revenue, especially as consumer behavior shifts toward AI chatbots and agents for tasks.
In contrast, Google recently settled a similar dispute with Epic Games, reducing its Play Store commissions to 20%. This divergence highlights the evolving regulatory landscape for digital marketplaces.
Epic Games spokesperson Natalie Munoz criticized Apple’s motion as “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.” She added, “Courts have time and time again found this to be illegal. 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. We will keep standing up to Apple’s attempts to undermine competition.”
The resolution of this battle will set precedents for how tech giants can monetize their platforms, with broader implications for competition and consumer choice in the app economy.
