Ninth Circuit Unanimously Denies Apple Rehearing in Epic Games Case

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Sunday unanimously denied Apple's petitions for both panel rehearing and rehearing en banc in its long-running legal battle with Epic Games, closing off one of the tech giant's few remaining avenues to challenge restrictions on how it charges developers for purchases made outside its native payment system.

The denial upholds the appeals court's December 2025 ruling, which largely affirmed a lower court's finding that Apple willfully violated an injunction by imposing a 27% commission on transactions conducted through external payment links. Critics, and ultimately the court, characterized the fee as a thinly veiled effort to preserve Apple's revenue stream despite a court order requiring it to loosen its grip on the App Store.

What the 27% Commission Ruling Actually Means

The original injunction in the Epic v. Apple case, issued by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in September 2021, required Apple to allow developers to include in their apps links or buttons directing users to external websites for purchases, ending the anti-steering policy that had previously barred such disclosures entirely.

Apple complied technically. But its compliance included a new fee: a 27% commission on any purchase completed within seven days of a user tapping an external link from an Apple app. Developers argued, and the December 2025 Ninth Circuit panel agreed, that the commission negated the practical benefit of the injunction. If directing a user to a cheaper external checkout triggers a 27% fee payable to Apple, most developers face worse economics than simply using Apple's standard 30% in-app purchase system.

The court found this was not mere technical compliance gone awry. The record, the panel wrote, supported the lower court's finding that Apple acted willfully, a higher bar than mere non-compliance that carries significantly greater legal and financial exposure.

3 Remaining Options | What Apple Can Do Next

Epic Games' Position and What It Wants

Epic has characterized the litigation outcome as a partial but meaningful win. The company's primary objective of getting Fortnite restored to the iOS App Store remains unresolved as a direct legal matter, though Apple reinstated Epic's developer account in 2024 under separate pressure. Epic's deeper goal is a structural change to App Store economics that would allow developers to use competing payment processors without an Apple-imposed surcharge.

For context on Epic's broader strategy and how Fortnite's removal triggered the case, see Fortnite Moves Into Movies and our coverage of the Apple App Store removal of Anything, a parallel developer dispute that illustrates how Apple continues to police its platform in 2026.

3 Jurisdictions | App Store Competition Law Under Pressure

The convergence of these pressures, a U.S. court finding of willful injunction violation, EU enforcement proceedings, and UK scrutiny, means Apple is navigating its most significant platform-competition legal exposure in its history. Each proceeding is formally independent, but outcomes in one jurisdiction influence the posture of regulators and courts in others.

What Comes Next

With the Ninth Circuit rehearing denied, the case moves to the remedies phase at the district court level. Judge Gonzalez Rogers will determine what sanctions, if any, apply for the period of willful non-compliance. Apple's near-term choice is whether to seek Supreme Court review, a long-shot option, or to redesign its external link fee policy in a way that satisfies the court's interpretation of the injunction.

For developers, the practical consequence remains uncertain. Until Apple publicly announces a revised policy or the district court issues a specific remediation order, the current fee structure remains in place and the litigation clock continues to run.

For related coverage on how the legal landscape is evolving for major tech platforms, see the Apple hub and our coverage of Letitia James' suit against Counter-Strike as a parallel example of platform liability enforcement expanding in 2026.