Apple has filed a petition with the Supreme Court asking it to stay the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, which would send the case back to the district court to determine what it can charge for purchases made outside the App Store. Here are the details.
A little context
Last year, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California found Apple in contempt of a 2021 injunction related to non-App Store purchases.
The injunction prohibited Apple from preventing developers from including buttons or links to alternative purchasing mechanisms, and from communicating with users about these options using contact information obtained in the app. However, the injunction does not specify whether Apple can charge a commission on these external purchases.
Extract from the decision:
Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and anyone in active consultation or participation with them (“Apple”), are hereby prohibited and permanently enjoined from developers (i) including in their applications and metadata any buttons, external links or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to in-app purchases and (ii) from communicating with customers through touchpoints voluntarily obtained from customers through account registration in the application.
After the injunction took effect, Apple updated its App Store rules to allow these links while applying a commission, setting fees of up to 27%.
This led to a contempt ruling, with the court arguing that by charging these fees, Apple was violating the spirit of the injunction, even though the order itself did not explicitly mention or prohibit such fees.
Following the contempt ruling, the case went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which vacated the district court’s zero commission rule and remanded the case to determine what commission Apple can charge.
Adding to the complexity of the case, Apple argues that the injunction wrongly applies not only to Epic Games, but to all developers around the world who distribute apps on the US App Store storefront.
Since the contempt ruling in 2025, Apple has complied with the order, while attempting to reverse several aspects of it. This includes another attempt to take the case to the Supreme Court, which brings us to today.
Apple asks Supreme Court to stay next phase of Epic case
In a filing sent to the Supreme Court today, Apple asks the court to stay the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, which would send the case back to the district court to determine how much commission it can charge on non-App Store purchases.
In essence, Apple argues the following:
- The contempt designation is undeserved because the 2021 injunction mentions nothing about App Store fees;
- The fact that this designation of unjustified contempt in the record unfairly harms his position in the removal proceedings;
- The injunction wrongly extends beyond Epic Games to all developers on the US App Store storefront;
Apple bases these arguments on previous court rulings and says it risks irreparable harm if the case proceeds now, including being forced to plead its commission in contempt and potentially disclose sensitive business information in the process.
The company also argues that the Ninth Circuit’s decision conflicts with other courts by allowing contempt based on the “spirit” of an injunction rather than its actual text, and says there is a reasonable chance that the Supreme Court will take the case and overturn parts of the decision, which is why the proceedings should be stayed now.
Apple also notes that it is not asking to block the injunction itself and that it will continue not to charge commissions on non-App Store purchases while the case is under review, meaning Epic faces no immediate harm from a pause.
Finally, Apple says it is still working on filing a formal request with the Supreme Court to review the case. However, he says that if the Supreme Court does not grant a stay, it should treat this request as that request.
To discover on Amazon
FTC: We use automatic, revenue-generating affiliate links. More.