Apple turned to the Supreme Court on Monday, seeking an emergency stay to block a lower court’s contempt ruling that could force the tech giant to alter its commission structure in the long-running antitrust battle with Epic Games. The company warned that without immediate intervention, it would be forced to litigate under a “prejudicial contempt label” while the high court weighs whether to hear the case.
Emergency Stay Request
In a filing, Apple asked the justices to pause the ruling from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, which found the iPhone maker in contempt for charging a 27% commission on purchases made through third-party payment links. The company argued that the proceedings could “reshape the global app market” before the Supreme Court has a chance to review the matter. As an alternative, Apple suggested the justices grant the stay and take up the case on its merits next term.
“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,” the filing reads.
The Epic Games Antitrust Saga
The dispute traces back to 2020, when Epic Games sued Apple after being booted from the App Store for trying to bypass the company’s in-app payment system. In 2021, a federal judge largely sided with Apple, ruling it was not an “illegal monopolist” but did engage in anticompetitive behavior. The court ordered Apple to allow app developers to display links to alternative payment options in the U.S., a shift from its long-standing practice of collecting a roughly 30% commission on in-app purchases—a model that has generated billions in revenue.
Last year, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple had violated the 2021 order, writing that the company “thwarted the injunction’s goals and continued its anticompetitive conduct.” Apple had previously asked the Supreme Court in 2023 to strike down the order mandating App Store changes, but the high court declined to hear the case in 2024, clearing the way for developers to post links to alternative payment methods.
Commission Fee Battle
Even after allowing those links, Apple continued to charge a 27% commission on external payments, which Epic argued violated the court’s directives. Gonzalez sided with Epic, issuing an injunction on that fee. For nearly a year, Apple has not collected commissions on third-party payment links, but the legal wrangling has continued. The company appealed the district court’s contempt finding to the Ninth Circuit, which initially granted a stay but reversed it last week.
Now, Apple is racing to the Supreme Court for a stay while the district court litigates the exact commission fees Apple may impose. The outcome could have far-reaching implications for the app economy, with developers and consumers watching closely. The Hill has reached out to both Apple and Epic for comment.
This case adds to a growing list of tech antitrust disputes before the courts. In related developments, the Supreme Court has recently weighed in on issues from donor privacy to redistricting, as seen in its unanimous ruling on donor lists and the Louisiana redistricting chaos that has sparked new battles ahead of the midterms.
