Ninth Circuit Pauses App Store Ruling as Apple Heads to Supreme Court

Apple is preparing to take its years-long App Store battle with Epic Games back to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday granted the company a stay while it readies a petition for high court review. The stay pauses a December 2025 appeals court ruling that largely upheld a contempt finding against Apple for imposing a 27 percent commission on purchases made through external payment links, a fee that courts found undermined a 2021 injunction meant to open the App Store to greater payment competition.

A Long Road Back to the High Court | Six Years of Litigation

Apple filed its motion on April 3, signaling it would ask the Supreme Court to review both the contempt ruling and the scope of the injunction, which applies to all U.S. developers rather than only Epic Games. The company argues that extending relief beyond Epic exceeds what courts are permitted to enforce in a single-plaintiff case.

The Ninth Circuit denied Apple's request for a full rehearing in March 2026, leaving the Supreme Court as the company's last avenue of appeal. The high court previously declined to hear an earlier round of the case in January 2024, when both Apple and Epic sought review of the original trial outcome.

Date	Event
August 2020	Epic introduces direct payment in Fortnite; Apple removes the app
September 2021	Judge Gonzalez Rogers rules Apple is not a monopolist but orders anti-steering injunction
December 2025	Ninth Circuit upholds contempt finding over Apple's 27% external payment commission
March 2026	Ninth Circuit denies Apple's en banc rehearing request
April 3, 2026	Apple files motion signaling Supreme Court petition
April 7, 2026	Ninth Circuit grants stay pending Supreme Court petition

Timeline of the Apple vs. Epic Games App Store litigation

Epic Games Pushes Back | “A Delay Tactic”

Epic Games responded swiftly to Monday's stay order, filing motions challenging the Ninth Circuit's decision to grant the pause. A spokesperson for Epic called Apple's maneuver a “delay tactic to prevent the court from establishing permanent bounds on Apple's ability to charge excessive fees on third-party payments.”

The dispute traces back to 2020, when Epic introduced a direct payment option in Fortnite to bypass Apple's standard 30 percent commission. In 2021, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled Apple was not a monopolist but ordered it to let developers link to outside payment methods. Apple responded by charging a 27 percent commission on those external transactions, a move Judge Gonzalez Rogers later called a “willful” violation of her order.

What the Supreme Court Would Decide | Scope of the Injunction

Apple's petition is expected to raise two primary questions. The first is whether the Ninth Circuit correctly upheld the contempt finding, given that Apple argues its 27 percent commission was a reasonable business decision rather than a violation of the injunction. The second, and potentially more consequential, is whether the injunction can lawfully apply to all U.S. developers when Epic Games was the sole plaintiff.

The scope question matters far beyond this case. If the Supreme Court rules that a single-plaintiff injunction can bind a company's conduct toward all similarly situated parties, it would strengthen the power of antitrust injunctions across the tech industry. If it rules the other way, it could limit the practical reach of antitrust remedies, requiring each affected party to bring its own case, a result that would make enforcement far more expensive and fragmented.

Industry Implications | App Store Economics at Stake

The stakes extend well beyond Apple and Epic. Google is facing parallel litigation over its Play Store commission structure, with trials and appeals moving through multiple courts. The European Union's Digital Markets Act has already forced Apple to allow sideloading and alternative payment processors in the EU, but the U.S. legal framework remains unsettled.

If the Supreme Court takes the case and rules against Apple, it could effectively end the 30 percent commission model that has defined mobile app distribution since 2008. If it declines to hear the case or rules in Apple's favor, the 27 percent external payment commission would remain in legal limbo, enforceable under the Ninth Circuit's ruling but unchallenged at the highest court.

For developers, the stay means the status quo holds for now. Apple continues to charge its standard commission on in-app purchases and its 27 percent fee on purchases made through external payment links. Developers who had hoped the contempt ruling would force Apple to lower or eliminate the external payment fee will have to wait for the Supreme Court to weigh in, a process that could take another 12 to 18 months.

What Comes Next | Cert Petition and Timing

Apple has 90 days from the Ninth Circuit's final order to file a petition for certiorari with the Supreme Court. If the petition is filed by late June, the Court could consider it during its fall 2026 conference and, if accepted, hear oral arguments in early 2027. A decision would likely come by June 2027.

The Supreme Court accepts roughly 1 to 2 percent of the petitions it receives. But the Apple-Epic case raises novel questions about the scope of antitrust injunctions and the economics of digital platforms, issues the Court has not addressed in the mobile era. The combination of high commercial stakes, a circuit-level split on injunction scope, and significant amicus interest from the tech industry and developer community makes a grant of certiorari more likely than the baseline rate would suggest.

For now, the stay gives Apple breathing room and shifts the timeline further into the future, exactly the outcome Epic accused it of seeking.