{"id":67670,"date":"2026-05-06T23:21:57","date_gmt":"2026-05-06T21:21:57","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/?p=67670"},"modified":"2026-05-06T23:24:45","modified_gmt":"2026-05-06T21:24:45","slug":"supreme-court-rejects-apples-emergency-appeal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/en\/news\/supreme-court-lehnt-apples-eilantrag-ab-epic","title":{"rendered":"Supreme Court rejects Apple's emergency motion: Epic case goes back to the lower court"},"content":{"rendered":"

The US Supreme Court has rejected Apple's request to stay the Epic Games case. The case now returns to the district court, where a reasonable commission rate for third-party app purchases will be determined. This marks a crucial point in the years-long dispute over App Store fees.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple has suffered another legal defeat in its dispute with Epic Games. Just two days after filing an emergency motion with the US Supreme Court seeking a stay of further negotiations regarding App Store commissions<\/a>, the highest US court issued its response. The ruling was brief and unequivocal: the motion was denied. This clears the way for the case to proceed at the district level \u2013 precisely on the issue Apple had sought to exclude from the proceedings (via Reuters<\/a>).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the decision means in concrete terms<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The case is now back on the desk of District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who has presided over the case for the past five years. She is tasked with determining the fee Apple will be allowed to charge for purchases made through external links within iOS apps\u2014so-called linked-out purchases. Until this fee is established, Apple is prohibited from charging any commission on such external purchases. For developers, this creates a unique situation during the transition period: links to their own payment systems remain free of charge, without Apple receiving any share. The final commission rate is still undecided, but it is expected to be significantly lower than the 27 percent originally demanded by Apple.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple's arguments and their weaknesses<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Apple based its emergency motion on three main arguments. The company considered the contempt-of-court ruling issued in 2025 to be unjustified because the original 2021 order had made no statements regarding commissions. Furthermore, the contempt-of-court ruling significantly harmed Apple's position in subsequent negotiations. Finally, Apple argued that the order was too broad because it encompassed all US developers beyond Epic Games \u2013 and regulators worldwide were observing the case as a potential precedent for their own proceedings. The Supreme Court did not accept these arguments. Justice Elena Kagan denied the motion on behalf of the court without providing further explanation. Epic Games had previously pointed out in its own submission that participating in the lower court proceedings concurrently with a potential Supreme Court review would not cause irreparable harm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Epic Games' response<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney called the ruling "great news" and saw it as confirmation that Apple's delaying tactics of the past five years had reached their limits. Sweeney emphasized that the next step is to determine the amounts Apple can charge solely for the actual costs of providing external purchase links. This reference is legally crucial: The district judge had deemed the fees originally charged by Apple unreasonably high because they far exceeded the effort required for the technical implementation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What happens next<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Apple has announced it is continuing to prepare a formal petition for a full Supreme Court review of the case. This petition is separate from the emergency injunction denied today. Whether the highest US court will even hear the case remains to be seen - a joint petition by Apple and Epic was already rejected in 2024. Meanwhile, the case continues at the district level. Should Judge Gonzalez Rogers set a commission rate in the coming months, it would have immediate consequences for the App Store's business model in the US. A fee that is too low would permanently deprive Apple of revenue, while one that is too high could again be interpreted as a violation of the original injunction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

International impact far beyond the USA<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In its emergency motion, Apple explicitly pointed to the international significance of the case. Indeed, competition authorities in the EU, the UK, Japan, and Brazil are closely monitoring US rulings. A commission rate set by the district court could serve as a benchmark for other regulatory proceedings. In the EU, the Digital Markets Act is also in effect, which has already forced Apple to significantly broaden the scope of its App Store. The pressure on Apple's fee structure is thus mounting from multiple directions simultaneously \u2013 and today's Supreme Court decision further intensifies it at one of its most crucial points. (Image: Shutterstock \/ Sean Pavone)<\/p>\n\n\n\n