Apple is about to bring its fight with Epic Game’s App Store again to the Supreme Court. In a new document, Apple indicated that it planned to request the United States Supreme Court to examine another aspect of this long-standing case concerning App Store ‘ s expenses.
At the same time, Apple attempted to suspend the Court of Appeal ‘ s decision to limit the manner in which it incurred external payments. On 6 April (Monday), the Court granted the apple motion, which was challenged by Epic Gomes. Apple and Epic have been caught in years of legal-sawing since Fortress Night in its application in 2020, when external payment channels were introduced to circumvent Apple Stock’s production. Apple was largely successful in 2021, and the court ruled that apples did not constitute a monopoly. However, the judge also made it clear that apples must allow for outside payment options for developers. Apple appealed the judgement to the United States Supreme Court, which refused to hear it, which upheld the original decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Since then, apples have allowed shop applications to provide external payment links, but have charged 27 per cent of commissions to developers using their own payment system, which is just under 30 per cent of Apple Shops. (At the same time, Google was able to reconcile Epic Gomes with a similar case last month, reducing its Play shop commission to 20 per cent.
Epic alleges that such costs were not in accordance with the court order; nor did they and other developers save any costs, as the payment itself was also a cost. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California agreed with Epic and found Apple in contempt of court. The decision was upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in December 2025. The Court of Appeal stated that Apple ‘ s 27 per cent charge on external payments was in fact contrary to the original intention of allowing external payments, but did not propose a new rate. Since Apple had no more options within the Ninth Circuit, it planned to bring the case before the Supreme Court. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it is expected that Apple will challenge the legal standard of its contempt and try to convince the judge that the Court should not be allowed to limit the fees for its services. Apple has long claimed that 27 per cent of the cost was not for processing but for other services such as hosting, discovery, software and developer tools. In essence, Apple believes that this cost reflects the value of its App Store ecosystem. However, at the end of the legal battle, the court decision may affect the profits that Apple earned from App Store, as consumers are increasingly turning to AI and agents to do their work.
According to Epic spokesman Natalie Muñoz, the Apple’s motion for suspension was “another delaying tactic designed to prevent the Court from imposing significant and permanent restrictions on the right of the Apple to pay high fees to third parties”. She added: “The Court has repeatedly found this to be illegal, and Epic has heard it directly from many developers as we try to provide developers with web shops and similar functions to compete with apples. Owing to apple tactics, only a few courageous developers, including Spotify, Kindle and Patreon, are willing to take advantage of this right and bring benefits to consumers. We will continue to resist apple attempts to disrupt competition.”