Apple Can't Delay App Store Fee Fight While Waiting on Supreme Court - MacRumors
Skip to Content

Apple Can't Delay App Store Fee Fight While Waiting on Supreme Court

Apple has again failed to earn a stay for fee calculations in its ongoing legal fight with Epic Games. Apple's case will be heard by the Supreme Court in the term that begins in October, and Apple asked the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to pause proceedings until then, but the court said no [PDF].

app store blue banner epic 1
Apple now has 24 hours to give the court an outline of the fees it wants to charge developers for using alternative payment options and linking out to purchase options on the web. ‌Epic Games‌ will then be able to give a legal analysis of Apple's fee proposal, and the court will decide what's reasonable.


Fee calculations are the result of a long, drawn-out dispute between ‌Epic Games‌ and Apple, which started when Epic sued Apple in 2020. Apple largely won the initial legal fight, but was ordered to change its anti-steering rules to let developers link to non-App Store purchase options. Apple complied, but charged a 12 to 27 percent fee that resulted in few developers choosing to use the option.

‌Epic Games‌ accused Apple of violating the court's order and U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers agreed. In April 2025, she found Apple in contempt of court for willfully violating her ruling, and stopped Apple from collecting any fees on links in the U.S. App Store.

Apple appealed, and the appeals court upheld the contempt ruling, but said Apple was entitled to reasonable fees for its intellectual property. The appeals court sent the case back to the district court to figure out what a reasonable fee might be. Apple has not been able to collect payment for link-outs since April 2025, and right now, there are no fees.

The appeals court ruling that continued to hold Apple in contempt led Apple to appeal to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case. Apple sought a pause on the fee calculations because the higher court's decision could undo the contempt ruling, but the appeals court, Supreme Court, and now the district court have denied Apple's pause requests.

The court will now determine a fee, and Apple will need to change its ‌App Store‌ rules to comply. The fee that's set in this legal battle could have implications well beyond the United States because Apple told the Supreme Court that regulators around the world are watching to see the outcome.

Popular Stories

european union eu

Google Fined $1 Billion by EU for Search Bias and App Store Restrictions

Thursday July 23, 2026 5:39 am PDT by
Google was today fined €890 million ($1 billion) by the European Union for breaching antitrust rules with regard to its search and Google Play store services. The European Commission found that Google had broken the Digital Markets Act (DMA) by using its dominant position in the search market to favour its own services, like shopping and hotel deals, over those of rivals. The Commission ...
apple bitcoin app scam

Apple Responds to Lawsuit Over Fake Bitcoin Wallet Scam in App Store

Monday July 27, 2026 6:00 am PDT by
Apple is facing a new lawsuit from three customers who allegedly lost a combined $1.8 million after falling victim to a fake Bitcoin wallet app in the App Store, according to a complaint filed in California federal court on Friday. The complaint alleges that Apple violated California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act and other laws by failing to adequately review and monitor apps distributed...
app store blue banner uk fixed

Apple Says UK App Store Steering Rules Would Be 'Highly Intrusive'

Wednesday July 29, 2026 3:43 pm PDT by
Apple said new UK App Store rules would give regulators a "highly intrusive" role dictating how it runs its business, reports Reuters. Apple submitted feedback to the UK's Competition and Markets Authority as it considers forcing Apple to change its App Store rules around steering. The CMA wants Apple to let developers link to payment options outside of the App Store, which the CMA says will ...

Top Rated Comments

sw1tcher Avatar
11 hours ago at 01:24 pm

Just let everyone sideload. Let iOS become the crapshow that Android is. Apple should develop a legal shield that basically absolves them of any and all liability if you do that stuff, and their messaging should be "If you want to be secure, don't do this but idgaf get hacked".
It's funny how so many people say if users want to sideload, then Apple should not be held responsible for anything bad that happens (and which is totally fair). But they never argue for the opposite, that if users are forced to use Apple's App store and they are harmed in any way that Apple should be held responsible and be required to make the user whole.

https://www.macrumors.com/2026/07/27/apple-app-store-fake-bitcoin-wallet-lawsuit/
Score: 13 Votes (Like | Disagree)
11 hours ago at 01:09 pm

Apple invests $billions each year to deliver the technology (hardware and software).
And customers spend billions on that hardware. Investing in R&D is what companies do. What's your point?


The App Store ecosystem was thoughtfully designed to avoid the mess we had with Windows and Mac software back in the 90s and early 2000s. It works. It helps to keep iPhone users safe.
Do you seriously believe that nonsense??? I've been a Mac user since 1988 and Mac software was never a "mess" and certainly not since OS X launched.

How many scammy data-harvesting apps have been removed from the App Store after weeks, months, even YEARS of not being flagged? There's absolutely no way that Apple can truly assess each app without reviewing code. The whole App Store approval process is a lot of smoke and mirrors and theater so that Apple can charge their 30% tax.


Sure, it's also a money machine, but we all benefit.
Lol


It's unreasonable for a subset of developers to get all of that investment handed to them on a silver platter.
It's unreasonable and just gross for a multi-trillion dollar corporation that already has upward of 40% profit margins to look for even more ways to bleed their customers forever.
Score: 9 Votes (Like | Disagree)
mansplains Avatar
11 hours ago at 12:37 pm

Notice how barely anyone cares about sideloading when it's now available in certain areas?
I’ve been sideloading for nearly a year in the US, where you have to use a dev account and renew weekly. I’ll take the minor inconvenience over switching back to the encrapified native YouTube app.
Score: 7 Votes (Like | Disagree)
11 hours ago at 01:16 pm

1. Look up what "fiduciary duty" means.
2. You want permanent free stuff for buying hardware once? Bleat about margins all you want, but running the app store ain't free.
The software industry was doing just fine before Apple decided it was going to bleed customers and developers forever. We didn't have 30% fees and we weren't restricted on where we could buy software until Apple magically invented this business model and its sycophants started rationalizing the obvious cash grab and censorship.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
11 hours ago at 12:33 pm

Notice how barely anyone cares about sideloading when it's now available in certain areas?
I certainly don’t as I almost never download any apps.
Score: 6 Votes (Like | Disagree)
11 hours ago at 12:56 pm

People are deciding good guys vs bad guys for each side, but really both side sucks in this particular issue. I know Epic is just trying to keep the cut for themselves and not going to lower their prices, but the anti-steering provisions and the technology fees for not using App Store payments on Apple's side leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
Apple invests $billions each year to deliver the technology (hardware and software). The App Store ecosystem was thoughtfully designed to avoid the mess we had with Windows and Mac software back in the 90s and early 2000s. It works. It helps to keep iPhone users safe.

Sure, it's also a money machine, but we all benefit.

It's unreasonable for a subset of developers to get all of that investment handed to them on a silver platter.
Score: 5 Votes (Like | Disagree)