SCOTUS Weighs Apple App Store Fees
Supreme Court to Review Apple's Contempt Ruling Regarding App Store External Payment Fees
Key Points
The Ninth Circuit allowed Apple to charge a fee for external-link purchases only if the fee is based on costs that are genuinely and reasonably necessary to coordinate those purchases, and it remanded to the district court to set the exact rate.
The Supreme Court declined to pause the contempt order in May while considering Apple’s appeal, with Justice Elena Kagan denying the emergency stay without referring the matter to the full Court.
In the same order, the Court indicated it would not take up Apple’s separate challenge to the sweeping universal injunction, leaving that issue unresolved for now.
Apple has not collected any commission on purchases made through external links for nearly a year due to the contempt ruling.
The contempt finding was issued in April 2025, when Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple violated the 2021 injunction, setting the stage for ongoing appellate proceedings.
The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Apple's appeal of a contempt ruling tied to its long-running fight with Epic Games over App Store fees, MacRumors reported. The case centers on whether Apple violated a 2021 court order by charging developers a 27% commission on purchases made through external payment links — links the court had ordered Apple to allow.
Apple has not collected any commission on those external-link purchases for nearly a year. The case will be argued in the Supreme Court's term beginning October 2026, with a ruling expected by June 2027. The outcome could reshape how app stores worldwide handle payments and fees, according to Washington Times.
How a 27% Fee Triggered a Contempt Finding
The conflict traces back to August 2020, when Epic deliberately bypassed Apple's payment system in Fortnite. Apple removed the game, and Epic sued. In September 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple must allow developers to add links pointing users to cheaper payment options outside the App Store.
Apple complied — but with a catch. It created a program requiring developers to apply for special approval, show users a warning screen, and pay a 27% commission on any purchase made within seven days of clicking the link, according to GV Wire. Epic argued this made the external option economically useless. Once developers added a 3–4% credit card fee on top of Apple's 27%, the total cost often exceeded Apple's standard 30% in-app rate.
Judge Calls Apple's Move a 'Willful Violation' and Refers Executive to Prosecutors
In April 2025, Judge Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in civil contempt. In an 80-page ruling, she called the 27% fee a "cover-up" and said Apple had acted with the aim of "preserving a revenue stream valued in the billions, directly defying this court's injunction." She also referred one Apple executive to federal prosecutors for potential criminal contempt.
The Ninth Circuit upheld the contempt finding in December 2025 but softened the remedy. Judge Milan Smith Jr. wrote that Apple can charge a fee — but only one that is "genuinely and reasonably necessary" to cover actual coordination costs, not a revenue grab. The exact rate was sent back to the district court to determine, according to Courthouse News.
Supreme Court Steps In as Justice Kagan Denies Emergency Pause
Apple asked the Supreme Court to pause the contempt order while it pursued its appeal. In May 2026, Justice Elena Kagan — who oversees Ninth Circuit matters — denied that request without referring it to the full court. Apple has been collecting 0% on external-link purchases ever since, according to MacRumors.
On June 30, 2026, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case (No. 25-1311). Apple said in a statement: "This is an important question of law and we are pleased the Supreme Court will hear our case." Epic CEO Tim Sweeney had celebrated the earlier contempt ruling, saying: "Apple's stalling tactics have come to an end."
A Ruling That Could Reshape App Payments Worldwide
Legal analysts say the Supreme Court may also use the case to address a separate issue: whether a single district judge can issue a "universal injunction" that changes business rules for an entire global platform. The court declined to take up that question for now but left it open, according to Washington Times.
Regulators in the EU, Japan, and South Korea are watching closely. A ruling that validates a high commission rate would give Apple leverage in global negotiations. A ruling against Apple could accelerate open-app laws worldwide and open the door for crypto wallets and rival payment providers to operate on iOS without what critics call the "Apple Tax," according to Mezha.
Sentiment
Mostly NegativePublishers
21
Articles
122
Reach
143
