Alana Hill
The U.S. Supreme Court agreed on June 30 to review whether Apple should escape a contempt finding tied to its long running antitrust battle with Epic Games, setting up a case that will decide how much commission Apple can charge developers who steer users to payment systems outside the App Store. Oral arguments are expected in the term beginning in October.
At a Glance
- The justices granted certiorari on Apple's appeal of a 9th Circuit ruling that upheld a contempt finding against the company.
- U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in civil contempt in 2025 for violating a 2021 injunction tied to Epic's original lawsuit.
- Apple currently charges a 27% commission on purchases made through external links within seven days of a click, versus 30% for in app purchases.
- The 9th Circuit let Apple pursue new arguments in district court over what commission rate should apply, but that process has not started.
- Apple says the outcome will influence commission structures regulators are watching in markets outside the United States.
How the Contempt Finding Came About
The dispute traces back to Epic's 2020 lawsuit challenging Apple's grip on in app transactions and its restrictions on how software reaches iPhone users. Epic largely lost that case, but Rogers issued an injunction in 2021 requiring Apple to let developers embed links directing customers to payment options outside Apple's own system. That single carve out has generated years of follow on litigation.
Apple complied with the letter of the injunction by permitting the links, then layered on new terms: a 27% commission for purchases completed outside the App Store within seven days of a user clicking through. Epic argued this commission structure gutted the intent of the injunction by making external payment options only marginally cheaper than Apple's standard 30% cut. Rogers agreed, finding Apple in civil contempt earlier in 2025.
What the 9th Circuit Decided
The San Francisco based appeals court upheld the contempt ruling in December but did not close the door entirely on Apple. It allowed the company to make fresh arguments in the district court about what commission, if any, it should be permitted to collect on digital goods purchased through third party payment systems inside apps distributed via the App Store. That proceeding has not yet begun in Oakland, meaning the commission question remains unresolved even as the contempt finding stands.
Apple's position before the Supreme Court is narrower than a blanket objection to the injunction. The company argues the original order should not extend its reach to the millions of developers who were never parties to Epic's lawsuit. That argument, if accepted, could significantly limit the scope of remedies available under the existing injunction regardless of how the commission dispute is ultimately resolved.
Commission Rates at Stake
| Payment Path | Commission Rate | Condition |
|---|---|---|
| In App Store purchase | 30% | Standard Apple commission |
| External link purchase | 27% | Applies within seven days of link click |
The three point gap between those two rates is the crux of Epic's argument that Apple never meaningfully complied with the 2021 injunction. Epic contends the reduced rate, combined with the seven day window, was designed to discourage developers and users from adopting outside payment options rather than genuinely opening competition as the court intended.
Why Apple Is Pressing the Case Nationally and Globally
Apple's filing to the Supreme Court frames the stakes well beyond Epic. The company told the justices that regulators in other countries are watching the case closely to gauge what commission rate Apple can charge on covered purchases in markets far larger than the United States. That framing signals Apple's concern that a Supreme Court loss could embolden antitrust regulators in the European Union, United Kingdom and elsewhere who are already scrutinizing App Store fee structures.
For Epic, founded and based in Cary, North Carolina, the case remains part of a broader campaign against what it characterizes as anticompetitive control by both Apple and Google over mobile app distribution. Epic has pursued parallel litigation against Google with mixed results, and the outcome of the Apple contempt case could shape settlement dynamics or regulatory posture in those separate proceedings.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Supreme Court actually deciding in this case?
The justices will review whether the lower courts correctly found Apple in civil contempt for violating the 2021 injunction, and whether that injunction's obligations properly extend to developers beyond Epic Games.
Has Apple's commission rate changed as a result of this litigation?
Apple currently charges 27% on purchases made through external payment links within seven days of a click, compared with its standard 30% commission on purchases made directly within the App Store.
When will the Supreme Court hear oral arguments?
The case is expected to be argued in the Supreme Court's next term, which begins in October.
Is the commission rate dispute fully resolved?
No. The 9th Circuit allowed Apple to make new arguments about permissible commission rates in the district court in Oakland, and that proceeding has not yet started.
What Comes Next
With certiorari granted, the case now moves toward briefing and argument in the term starting this fall, while the underlying commission rate proceeding sits paused in Oakland pending the Supreme Court's resolution of the contempt question. However the justices rule, the decision will likely shape how far court ordered remedies in antitrust cases can reach beyond the original litigants, a question with implications well beyond the app economy.
Dave Jimenez
Carlos Dixon
