{"id":70348,"date":"2026-07-14T16:25:28","date_gmt":"2026-07-14T14:25:28","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/?p=70348"},"modified":"2026-07-14T16:26:36","modified_gmt":"2026-07-14T14:26:36","slug":"apple-rejects-epics-objections-to-the-procedural-pause","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/en\/news\/apple-weist-epics-einwaende-gegen-verfahrenspause-zurueck","title":{"rendered":"Apple rejects Epic's objections to the procedural pause"},"content":{"rendered":"

The dispute over the App Store commission has narrowed down to a question of timing: Should the lower court continue the proceedings while the Supreme Court reviews the case? Apple has now responded \u2013 and is highly critical of Epic's reasoning.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple has filed a rebuttal with the relevant district court in California, contradicting Epic's position on almost every point. Epic had described the stay request as a third attempt to delay a hearing on the proposed fee for diverted purchases<\/a>. Apple counters that the entire remand is based on a finding currently under review by the Supreme Court \u2013 and that the lower court is therefore wise to wait rather than perform work that could subsequently be rendered moot.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The core of the reply<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The dispute stems from a 2021 preliminary injunction that required Apple to allow developers to include notices about purchase options outside the App Store. The wording of the injunction did not explicitly prohibit a commission on such purchases. However, when Apple began charging 27 percent on externally processed transactions, the presiding judge in April 2025 deemed this a deliberate violation and found Apple in contempt of court. The appeals court upheld this finding in December 2025 but ordered a new trial to determine what commission Apple would be allowed to charge in the future.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is precisely where the response begins: The sole basis for this remand procedure is the finding of contempt. If this finding is overturned, the very grounds for negotiating the fee amount also disappear. Apple therefore rejects Epic's argument that the review in Washington is irrelevant to the lower court as incorrect \u2013 pointing out that Epic itself had previously obtained the same finding and defended it on appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why previous rejections don't count, according to Apple<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Epic had pointed out that both the appeals court and the Supreme Court judge responsible for the district had already rejected a stay of proceedings. Apple draws a line here: The previous rejection was of a stay of proceedings, meaning the suspension of the appeal decision as a whole. The current request is much more narrowly focused, targeting only the ongoing proceedings before the lower court. Therefore, the criteria by which the earlier requests failed are not applicable.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Twice in its written submission, Apple emphasizes the same point: the question before the Supreme Court in Washington is whether the appeals court applied the wrong legal standard. If so, the contempt ruling would either be invalidated or would have to be reassessed. At the end of June, the Supreme Court accepted only this question for review<\/a> and explicitly did not address the second point in Apple's appeal - the scope of the injunction to all developers. The hearing will take place during the judicial year that begins in October.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A supplementary application in case of rejection<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The brief concludes with a contingency plan. Should the judge deny the stay, Apple requests that the proceedings nevertheless be temporarily suspended - long enough to obtain a stay from the Court of Appeals or directly from the Supreme Court. The original motion in early July<\/a> did not include this second avenue. In effect, Apple is thus securing its recourse to the higher courts should the lower court proceed with the commission hearing.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What changes the process for developers in Europe<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Apple itself pointed out in a written submission to the Supreme Court that regulators worldwide are monitoring the outcome to determine what commission the company may charge on affected purchases in major markets outside the US. However, the proceedings have no immediate impact on developers in Germany, Austria, and the EU: The ruling from the Epic case binds Apple in the US App Store, not in Europe. Here, the Digital Markets Act governs the conditions under which apps may link to external purchase options.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

And there, Apple charges its own fees. Anyone promoting offers outside the App Store in the EU pays, according to Apple's terms, an initial acquisition fee, a tiered store services fee, and a levy for Apple's core technologies - a model that European developers have already openly opposed<\/a>. A victory for Apple in Washington would change this no more than a defeat. In Switzerland, the DMA doesn't apply at all: there, the global standard terms of the App Store continue to apply without the European opt-out options.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The timetable is now in the hands of the lower court<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

With the exchange of written submissions, both sides have now submitted their briefs. The decision as to whether the commission hearing will begin this year or wait until after the Washington ruling now rests with the judge who originally issued the contempt ruling. For Apple, more than just a date is at stake: the later the hearing takes place, the greater the chance that the commission on diverted purchases will be decided without the stigma of contempt. (Image: Shutterstock \/ mojo cp)<\/p>\n\n\n\n