Apple’s Bid to Buy Time at the Supreme Court Failed, Here’s What Happens Next in the Epic Games Lawsuit

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected on May 6, 2026 Apple’s request to temporarily block a judicial order that found the iPhone maker in violation of sweeping court-mandated changes to its lucrative App Store as part of an antitrust lawsuit by Fortnite maker Epic Games. Justice Elena Kagan, on behalf of the court, declined to pause a ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that deemed Apple in contempt in the Epic lawsuit contesting App Store fees.

The decision keeps Apple under the contempt order and sends the case back to a federal trial court in Oakland to determine what commission — if any — Apple can lawfully charge developers when users click out of the App Store to pay through external systems. This is one of the most consequential antitrust disputes in U.S. tech history, and it is still far from over.

Quick Facts

Field	Detail
Case Name	Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc.
Court	U.S. Supreme Court (application); 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (contempt ruling); U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California (remand)
District Judge	Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, Oakland, California
Supreme Court Decision	May 6, 2026 — Justice Elena Kagan denied Apple’s stay application
9th Circuit Contempt Ruling	December 11, 2025 — upheld contempt, remanded for commission rate determination
Original Injunction	2021 — Apple required to allow external payment links in apps
Apple’s Contempt	Charged 27% commission on off-App Store purchases; added “scare screens”
Apple’s Commission Since April 2025	0% — collecting no commission on external purchases
Next Step	District Court proceedings to set lawful commission rate
Last Updated	May 7, 2026

What the Epic vs. Apple Lawsuit Is Actually About

This case started in August 2020 when Epic Games deliberately violated Apple’s App Store rules by building a direct payment system into Fortnite — bypassing Apple’s 30% commission on in-app purchases. Apple pulled Fortnite from the App Store. Epic sued the same day, challenging Apple’s control over how iOS apps are distributed and how developers get paid.

Apple mostly defeated Epic’s lawsuit, but was required in a 2021 court injunction to let developers include links in their apps directing users to non-Apple payment methods. This was the anti-steering provision — Apple could no longer stop developers from telling users that cheaper options existed outside the App Store.

Apple complied — but on its own terms. Apple allowed the links but adopted new restrictions, including a 27% commission on developers for purchases made on payment systems outside the App Store within seven days of clicking a link. Apple charges developers a 30% commission for purchases within the App Store.

The math was clear: Apple was charging almost the same commission for purchases made outside its own payment system as for purchases made inside it. In April 2025, Judge Gonzalez Rogers agreed with Epic that Apple’s moves were a “gross miscalculation” of what the court would accept. She found Apple in civil contempt.

For deeper background on how this case connects to Epic’s parallel litigation against Google — where the outcome was very different — see our full analysis of the Epic Games antitrust rulings against Apple and Google.

What the 9th Circuit Ruled in December 2025

The 9th Circuit’s December 11, 2025 ruling had two parts, and understanding both matters.

First, it upheld the contempt finding against Apple. The court agreed that Apple violated the spirit of the 2021 injunction — not just its technical letter — by designing its external purchase link system in a way that preserved its financial advantage and discouraged developers from actually using those links. The judge found Apple was in contempt because it put in place measures to make it more difficult for developers to encourage customers to go outside the App Store and imposed a large commission on purchases made through third-party systems after clicking on a link in the App Store.

Second — and this is where it gets complicated — the 9th Circuit did not simply order Apple to charge zero commission forever. The 9th Circuit upheld the judge’s contempt finding but allowed Apple to make new arguments about what commission it should be allowed to charge for digital goods bought in apps distributed through the App Store but paid for using third-party payment systems.

So the case went back to Judge Gonzalez Rogers with this question open: What is a lawful, reasonable commission rate for Apple to charge on these external purchases?

Why Apple Went to the Supreme Court — and Why It Lost This Round

Apple’s goal was simple: buy time. The company wanted the Supreme Court to pause the 9th Circuit’s mandate — the order sending the case back to the district court — while Apple prepared a full appeal to the justices.

Apple came to the Supreme Court on Monday, arguing: “A stay is now needed before Apple is forced to litigate its commission rate under an erroneous and prejudicial contempt label — in proceedings that could reshape the global app market — before this Court can consider whether to grant review.”

Apple also raised a separate argument about the scope of the injunction. Apple has denied violating the judge’s order and has argued that the injunction should not be applied to millions of developers beyond Epic Games. In other words: even if Apple violated something, the remedy should cover only its dispute with Epic — not all App Store developers worldwide.

Related article: $350K Oglethorpe Data Breach Settlement, Check If You Qualify for Up to $2,500, Claim Deadline is July 8

Apple’s global stakes argument was explicit. “Regulators around the world are watching this case to determine what commission rate Apple may charge on covered purchases in huge markets outside the United States,” Apple told the Supreme Court in a filing.

Epic pushed back hard. Epic argued that Apple had failed to show any irreparable harm, since participating in remand proceedings while seeking Supreme Court review did not justify a stay. Epic also argued that delaying the case further would continue to harm developers and consumers by leaving uncertainty about the commission Apple can charge on linked-out purchases.

Justice Kagan denied the stay on May 6, 2026, without explanation — which is standard practice for emergency stay applications at the Supreme Court.

Where Things Stand Right Now and What Comes Next

The Supreme Court’s denial does not end Apple’s broader legal challenges. It simply means Apple cannot delay the district court proceedings while it prepares its Supreme Court petition.

Apple now faces litigation on two simultaneous tracks:

Track 1 — District Court remand. The Supreme Court’s action means Apple will return to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, to quarrel over what commission the company can lawfully charge for certain app-related transactions. In the district court, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney said Apple must now disclose the costs involved in reviewing apps that use competing payment systems so developers can be billed accordingly. The outcome of this proceeding will set an actual dollar figure — or percentage — for what Apple can charge.

Track 2 — Supreme Court petition. Apple can still petition the Supreme Court to take up the full case. If the Supreme Court agrees with Apple’s scope appeal, it could mean only having to make changes for Epic and not all developers. If the Supreme Court also agrees that using the spirit of the law to call for an injunction violation isn’t allowed, the battle in the Circuit Courts won’t be required at all. It all hinges on which court moves faster at this point.

What Apple is charging developers right now: Zero. Apple has not been charging commission on external purchases since the original injunction violation was filed in April 2025. That means every month the case continues without resolution is a month Apple collects nothing on billions of dollars in external app transactions.

Why This Case Matters Beyond Apple and Epic

This is not a dispute between two companies about one game. It is a legal battle that will determine how one of the world’s most lucrative digital platforms can operate — and what limits courts can place on tech giants who technically comply with court orders while undermining their purpose.

Apple’s contempt finding demonstrates courts’ increasing frustration with tech companies’ “malicious compliance” — technically following court orders while undermining their purpose. That principle, if it holds, reshapes how tech platform injunctions are enforced across the entire industry.

Global regulators are paying attention. Apple said so directly in its own Supreme Court filing. The commission rate that emerges from the district court proceeding will influence how regulators in the European Union, the United Kingdom, Japan, and South Korea think about what Apple can charge in their own markets.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the Supreme Court actually decide on May 6, 2026? 

Justice Elena Kagan, acting for the full court, denied Apple’s request to pause the 9th Circuit’s contempt ruling and its mandate sending the commission rate question back to the district court. The Supreme Court did not rule on the merits of Apple’s case — it simply refused to delay the lower court proceedings.

Is Apple still in contempt of court? 

Yes. The contempt finding remains in place. The 9th Circuit upheld it in December 2025 and the Supreme Court declined to pause it. Apple disputes this finding and intends to continue its legal challenge, but the order stands for now.

What commission is Apple collecting on external purchases right now?

 Zero. Apple has not collected a commission on purchases made through links to external payment systems since April 2025, when Judge Gonzalez Rogers first found Apple in contempt. That will continue until the district court sets a lawful rate.

Can Apple still appeal to the Supreme Court?

 Yes. Apple can file a full petition for certiorari — asking the Supreme Court to take up the case. The denial of the stay is not a ruling on whether the Supreme Court will ultimately hear Apple’s appeal. Apple is pursuing two issues: whether the contempt finding was proper, and whether the injunction applies to all developers or only to Epic.

What happens in the district court now?

 Judge Gonzalez Rogers will hold proceedings to determine what commission rate Apple may lawfully charge for off-App Store purchases made through external payment links. Epic argues Apple should only be able to charge the actual cost of reviewing and processing such transactions — not a percentage of the sale.

Does this ruling affect Fortnite or other apps right now? 

Fortnite returned to the iOS App Store in May 2025 after a multi-year absence. The current proceedings focus on the commission structure going forward — not Fortnite’s availability specifically.

What is the broader significance for app developers?

 If the district court sets a low commission rate on external purchases, and the Supreme Court does not intervene, it could permanently change the economics of the App Store. Developers who use external payment links would owe Apple far less than the current 30% in-app purchase commission. That represents a potentially significant shift in App Store revenue.

Sources & References

• Reuters — Supreme Court declines to pause Apple contempt order in Epic lawsuit, May 6, 2026
• 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals — Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 25-2935, December 11, 2025: cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov
• CNBC — Supreme Court declines to pause order holding Apple in contempt in Epic Games lawsuit, May 6, 2026

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Legal claims and outcomes depend on specific facts and applicable law. For advice regarding a particular situation, consult a qualified attorney.

Prepared by the AllAboutLawyer.com Editorial Team and reviewed for factual accuracy against the SCOTUSblog report, the 9th Circuit opinion (No. 25-2935), and Reuters coverage on May 7, 2026. Last Updated: May 7, 2026