{"id":69761,"date":"2026-07-02T04:19:09","date_gmt":"2026-07-02T02:19:09","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/?p=69761"},"modified":"2026-07-02T04:20:48","modified_gmt":"2026-07-02T02:20:48","slug":"apple-epic-proceedings-suspended-supreme-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/en\/news\/apple-epic-verfahren-aussetzung-supreme-court","title":{"rendered":"Apple will suspend the Epic case until the Supreme Court ruling"},"content":{"rendered":"

Apple and Epic Games are pulling together in their dispute over App Store fees \u2013 at least procedurally: They are jointly asking the court to postpone important deadlines for the time being. The reason is Apple's plan to suspend the entire proceedings until the Supreme Court reaches a decision.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The legal battle between Apple and Epic Games has entered a new procedural phase with the latest development. Following the Supreme Court's agreement to hear Apple's appeal in the Epic dispute<\/a>, two proceedings are now running concurrently: the Supreme Court on one side and the relevant district court on the other. To prevent both from proceeding in parallel, Apple and Epic have now filed a joint motion with the district court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What it's essentially about<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear part of Apple's appeal. Apple had asked the court to consider two questions. The first concerns whether the company can be held contempt of court for charging commissions on purchases made through external links - even though the original order did not explicitly prohibit such fees. The second question concerns whether the order can be broadly applied to all developers, rather than just Epic.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court accepted the contempt of court ruling but declined to review the broader scope of the order. Meanwhile, the district court was preparing to reassess the rules governing what commission, if any, Apple may charge on purchases made through external links.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple had previously attempted unsuccessfully to halt the proceedings quickly: An emergency motion to suspend the appeals court's mandate<\/a> was denied by Judge Elena Kagan. This meant that both the Supreme Court case and the remand to the district court remained on track.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The district court's current schedule<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

According to the district court's timetable, Apple was to submit a proposal by July 6 outlining how it intended to implement the appeals court's ruling \u2013 including a potential fee structure. Apple would then have had until July 16 to submit the relevant documents not subject to attorney-client privilege.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Epic's response would then have been due within 60 days of the later of these two steps, followed by another 30 days for Apple's reply. This tightly scheduled timeline is the reason why both sides now want to slow down.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The joint request for postponement<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Apple and Epic Games jointly asked the district court to postpone the existing deadlines for the remand. Apple had informed the court that it was seeking a stay of proceedings until the Supreme Court has ruled. Both companies therefore proposed a short delay while this request is being prepared and decided upon in writing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to the proposed timeline, Apple would file its motion for a stay of proceedings by July 6, Epic would respond by July 10, and Apple would submit its reply by July 13. This shifts the dispute, for a few days, from the substantive issue of the fee amount to the purely formal question of whether the proceedings should continue at all.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why the deadlines will remain in place for now<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

A crucial formal point is that this is merely a proposed order. Before it takes effect, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers must sign it. In practice, this means that the existing deadlines for remanding cases technically remain in place until she approves the new timetable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

As long as this signature is pending, the original, tighter timetable remains formally in effect. Only with its approval would the agreed postponement take effect.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

An intermediate step with far-reaching questions in the background<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

As technical as the current application may seem, at its core it remains the fundamental question underlying the entire case: whether and to what extent Apple may charge a commission on purchases made through external links. This very question has accompanied the case on its long journey to the Supreme Court<\/a> \u2013 and its answer is likely to shape the App Store's business model far beyond the dispute with Epic. The coming days will initially only determine the pace, not the outcome. (Image: Shutterstock \/ Nin2530)<\/p>\n\n\n\n