How the Epic Games lawsuit pushed Apple to the Supreme Court
Apple’s latest move to petition the U.S. Supreme Court caps a legal battle with Epic Games that began in 2020 over Fortnite’s in‑app payments. Epic tried to bypass Apple’s in‑app purchase system, directly challenging the App Store payment rules and triggering a major antitrust lawsuit. In the 2021 trial, Apple prevailed on nine out of ten antitrust claims but lost on its “anti‑steering” policies, which had blocked developers from directing users to external payment options. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to stop preventing developers from including links or prompts that lead users to alternative payment methods. That injunction became the seed of a broader debate over app store regulation and developer freedom. What began as a dispute between Apple and one game publisher is now positioned to shape how every major platform might be allowed to control software distribution and monetization.
The contempt finding: Apple’s commission on external payments
To comply with the anti‑steering injunction, Apple updated its App Store policies to permit external payment links, but added a significant caveat: it would still charge a 12% to 27% commission on purchases completed through those links. Epic Games argued that this effectively neutralized the benefit of third‑party payments by making them economically unattractive, and took Apple back to court. In April 2025, Judge Gonzalez Rogers agreed, ruling that Apple had willfully violated the injunction and finding the company in civil contempt. As a penalty, she barred Apple from collecting any commissions on external link‑outs in the U.S. App Store. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld the contempt ruling, while suggesting Apple should eventually be allowed to charge a reasonable fee for use of its intellectual property. That tension—between compliance and compensation—now sits at the heart of Apple’s Supreme Court appeal.
Apple’s Supreme Court arguments and what it wants changed
In its Supreme Court filing, Apple attacks the legal basis of the contempt ruling rather than the original Epic Games lawsuit verdict. The company argues that the 2021 injunction never clearly prohibited it from collecting commissions on external transactions. According to Apple, civil contempt should only apply when a party violates a clear, explicit court order—not an inferred “spirit” of the ruling. Apple says the lower courts improperly relied on that broader intent to conclude it acted in bad faith. It also contends that, because Epic sued on its own behalf, any resulting rules should apply only to Epic, not to every developer on the U.S. App Store. By challenging both the scope of the injunction and the standard for contempt, Apple is asking the Supreme Court to narrow how far judges and regulators can go in reshaping platform business models.
What the outcomes could mean for users and developers
The Supreme Court’s response could have sweeping consequences for App Store payment rules and app store regulation more broadly. If the contempt finding stands, Apple may be forced to maintain more permissive rules that let developers link to third‑party payment systems without paying Apple a commission on those transactions. That could encourage more apps to offer direct payment options, potentially lowering costs or giving users additional choices at checkout. If Apple succeeds, it could regain leeway to charge commissions on external payments and keep tighter control over how developers present alternatives, reinforcing its existing ecosystem model. Developers would then need to weigh the benefits of steering users off‑app against continued platform fees. Beyond Apple and Epic, the outcome will signal how much control major platforms can assert over in‑app purchases as legal and regulatory scrutiny intensifies.