{"id":66307,"date":"2026-04-06T23:40:30","date_gmt":"2026-04-06T21:40:30","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/?p=66307"},"modified":"2026-04-06T23:40:36","modified_gmt":"2026-04-06T21:40:36","slug":"apple-vs-epic-games-headed-to-the-supreme-court-planned","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/en\/news\/apple-vs-epic-games-weg-zum-supreme-court-geplant","title":{"rendered":"Apple vs. Epic Games: Apple plans to take the case to the Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"

Apple plans to take its legal dispute with Epic Games to the US Supreme Court. Until then, the current fee-free policy for App Store links will remain in effect.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The ongoing legal battle between Apple and Epic Games, which began in 2020, has reached a new level of escalation. Apple has filed<\/a> a motion with an appeals court to pause a pending case concerning the setting of an App Store fee, while simultaneously appealing to the US Supreme Court. This move demonstrates Apple's determination to maintain control over its App Store business model.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At its core, this is a question that affects the entire app ecosystem: Is Apple allowed to charge a commission on purchases made through external links in apps \u2013 and if so, how high can this commission be? This case has had far-reaching consequences for developers worldwide for years and exemplifies the debate surrounding Apple's market power in digital distribution.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple vs. Epic Games: The Story so far<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The legal battle began in 2020 when Epic Games sued over Apple's App Store guidelines. Apple largely won the case \u2013 the court found no monopoly. However, in 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered that Apple must allow developers to link to external purchase options within their apps.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple subsequently implemented new rules, but only slightly reduced the commission \u2013 from 15-30 percent to 12-27 percent for purchases made through external links. Since third-party payment fees were also charged, hardly any developers used the option. Epic Games sued again, accusing Apple of deliberately circumventing the court order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In April 2025, the court found that Apple had willfully violated the order and prohibited Apple from charging any fees on link-based purchases. Apple immediately appealed and eliminated the fees.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In December 2025, the Court of Appeal issued a mixed ruling: the violation of the order was upheld, but the teacher's response was deemed potentially excessive. The Court of Appeal remanded the case and instructed the District Court to determine an appropriate fee.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple's Strategy: Pause until the Supreme Court<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Apple is determined to prevent precisely this step. In a motion dated April 3, Apple is asking the appeals court to suspend the fee-setting proceedings until the Supreme Court has ruled on a potential hearing. Apple's argument: It makes no sense to establish a fee structure that the Supreme Court might subsequently overturn entirely.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Specifically, Apple proposes maintaining the current fee-free policy until a final decision is reached. Developers can currently place links to external purchase options in their apps without Apple charging a commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple has not yet formally appealed to the Supreme Court. There is also no guarantee that the court will accept the case \u2013 in 2024, the Supreme Court rejected a joint appeal. This time, however, Apple intends to specifically challenge the contempt of court sentence and the scope of the original order. The Supreme Court is particularly interested in whether Apple violated the spirit or the letter of the order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What this means for Developers<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

As long as the legal proceedings are ongoing, developers benefit from the current situation: External links in apps are permitted, and Apple does not charge a commission on them. This could change if the Supreme Court accepts the case and rules in Apple's favor. Should the court reject the case, the district court would set a fee \u2013 presumably significantly lower than Apple's original 27 percent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Regardless of the outcome in the US, the case has already had repercussions in other markets. In the EU, Apple fundamentally revised<\/a> its App Store fee structure under the Digital Markets Act \u2013 also in response to regulatory pressure that gained additional weight as a result of the Epic case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A legal dispute with far-reaching implications<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The Apple vs. Epic Games case is far more than a dispute between two companies. It defines the rules of the game for digital marketplaces and the question of how much control platform operators should have over payment methods. Apple's appeal to the Supreme Court\u2014should the court accept the case\u2014could determine the answer to this question for years to come. (Image: Shutterstock \/ AnnaStills)<\/p>\n\n\n\n