Apple will again appeal to the Supreme Court in battle with Epic Games
apple google
| Source: Mastodon | Original article
Apple has filed a fresh petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review a lower‑court ruling that curtails its ability to levy fees on transactions that bypass the App Store. The move follows a district‑court decision that forced Apple to permit “external‑payment” links in apps and a subsequent contempt order for allegedly violating that injunction. By seeking a stay of the contempt ruling and a full review of the fee‑restriction judgment, Apple is trying to preserve its 27‑percent commission model while the case heads toward its final legal showdown.
The appeal matters because the App Store is a cornerstone of Apple’s services revenue, generating roughly $80 billion in 2025. A Supreme Court reversal could restore Apple’s right to enforce its payment‑system monopoly, keeping the fee structure intact for the millions of developers who rely on iOS distribution. Conversely, a decision that upholds the lower court’s limits would force Apple to redesign its billing architecture, potentially opening the ecosystem to competing payment providers and reshaping pricing across the mobile‑app market. The outcome will also reverberate beyond the United States, informing regulatory actions in the European Union’s Digital Markets Act and similar antitrust probes worldwide.
As we reported on 7 April, Apple had already asked a federal court to pause the fee fight while it petitioned the Supreme Court. The new filing signals that the company is unwilling to settle for a partial stay and is instead pushing for a definitive ruling from the nation’s highest court. Watch for the Court’s scheduling order, which will set the date for oral arguments, likely in the coming months. The timing of the decision—potentially before Apple’s 2026 fiscal year—could dictate whether the company rolls out a revised App Store policy or doubles down on litigation. The next steps will also influence Epic Games’ broader strategy, including possible settlement talks or parallel suits in other jurisdictions.
Sources
Back to AIPULSEN