Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Apple’s Appeal of Epic Contempt Ruling

The US Supreme Court agreed on Tuesday, June 30, to hear Apple’s appeal of a contempt ruling tied to its 27 percent commission on external iOS app payments. The court scheduled the case for argument in its next term, which begins in October. Apple was found in civil contempt in April 2025 for adding the fee after a 2021 injunction ordered it to let developers steer users to outside payment options. A decision could follow by June 2027, per the Baltimore Sun.

Apple argues it broke no express term of Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ 2021 order, only the so-called spirit of it. Epic Games calls the same fee “junk fees” and points to two lower courts that found Apple in contempt of the injunction by clear and convincing evidence. The court’s review will turn on a single legal question whose answer will set the commission Apple may charge on every paid iOS app sold through links that leave Apple’s payment system.

Why the Supreme Court Took the Case

The Supreme Court on Tuesday granted certiorari in Apple Inc. v. Epic Games Inc., clearing the way for oral argument in the term that opens in October. Apple’s petition asked the justices to overturn a finding by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of Oakland, California that Apple willfully defied the 2021 injunction she issued in the original Epic antitrust fight. Apple had also asked the court to limit the original injunction to Epic Games alone, but the justices’ order indicated they will not take up that question. “This is an important question of law, and we are pleased the Supreme Court will hear our case,” Apple said in a statement. The 27 percent commission at issue sits at the center of every part of the case the justices will now consider.

What survives the cert grant is the contempt question. Apple contends it broke no express prohibition because the 2021 order did not specifically bar new commissions on outside payments. Both the district court and the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals found otherwise, with the appellate panel ruling that civil contempt was shown by clear and convincing evidence. In a filing, Apple told the court that regulators around the world were watching the case to determine what commission rate it may charge on covered purchases beyond the United States.

Apple made the global stakes argument in its own words. The filing, quoted in news coverage of the order, framed commissions abroad as a reason for the justices to weigh in. Epic, for its part, urged the high court to “stay out of the dispute,” saying Apple’s “willful contempt” had delayed competition for years.

The 27% Fee and How It Was Built

The commission at issue sits inside a fee structure Apple rolled out in January 2024 to comply with the 2021 injunction while preserving most of its App Store revenue. Under that structure, Apple charged developers 27 percent on transactions made through links that took users off Apple’s in-app purchase system within seven days of a tap. Standard App Store in-app purchase commissions range from 15 percent to 30 percent, per the Reuters report on the appellate ruling. MacRumors has noted that the 27 percent rate replaced the 30 percent rate and added link-related restrictions on top.

The structure was Apple’s answer to the requirement that developers be allowed to communicate with users about outside payment options. Epic argued the new fee made external payments economically pointless once payment processor costs were added on top. Judge Rogers concluded in April 2025 that the structure did not match the injunction she had issued. She barred Apple from collecting any commission on purchases completed through external links in the U.S. App Store. The April 2025 ruling prompted Apple to change its U.S. rules to comply.

Here is how the commission rates stack up under each regime.

The April 2025 contempt order forced Apple to drop the 27 percent commission on purchases completed through external links. Apple complied by removing the fee from its U.S. App Store rules. The Ninth Circuit upheld the contempt finding in December 2025, narrowing the April 2025 order only on the question of what, if any, future fee Apple could be permitted to charge.

Six Years of Court Battles

The contempt appeal is the latest turn in a fight that started in August 2020, when Epic slipped its own payment system into Fortnite and Apple pulled the game within hours. The case has produced two findings against Apple, one unanimous appellate affirmation, and now a grant of certiorari by the Supreme Court. Apple says the fight reaches beyond the App Store because commissions abroad ride on what the justices decide. Epic has cast the same dispute as a defense of free markets against junk fees.

Here is the timeline that put the case on the Supreme Court docket. The next eight entries cover the dispute from Epic’s first payment work-around in 2020 through the cert grant in June. Each turn took place inside one of the rulings now under review.

1. August 2020 – Epic Games adds its own payment option to Fortnite; Apple removes the game within hours.
2. 2020 – Epic files the antitrust lawsuit against Apple.
3. September 2021 – Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issues the underlying injunction, ordering Apple to allow anti-steering links.
4. January 2024 – Apple introduces a 27 percent external payment commission.
5. April 2025 – Judge Rogers finds Apple in civil contempt for violating the injunction.
6. December 2025 – The 9th Circuit unanimously affirms the contempt finding.
7. May 2026 – Justice Kagan denies Apple’s stay application; Fortnite returns to iOS worldwide.
8. June 30, 2026 – Supreme Court agrees to hear Apple’s appeal.

The 9th Circuit’s December 2025 ruling paired affirmation of the contempt finding with a narrow concession. The appellate panel let Apple return to the Northern District of California to argue what commission, if any, would be permissible for digital goods bought through external links. Apple followed up with an emergency request to pause the contempt finding in early May 2026. Justice Elena Kagan denied that application on May 6, 2026, less than an hour after Epic filed its opposition, a sequence detailed in the May denial of Apple’s request to pause the contempt order. Oral argument is now expected in the Supreme Court’s October term, with a decision possible by June 2027.

The Narrow Question Before the Justices

The grant order pares Apple’s appeal down to a single legal question: whether Apple’s 27 percent commission, imposed after Judge Rogers’ 2021 injunction, amounted to contempt of the original order. Apple’s central theory is that the 2021 order contained no express prohibition on new commissions, so a contempt finding cannot rest on its absence. The company has called a contempt ruling based on the “spirit” of an order, rather than its specific wording, a “recipe for abuse,” according to MacRumors.

Epic sees the lower contempt rulings as narrow, fact-bound findings affirmed unanimously on clear and convincing evidence. The district court had found that Apple “willfully chose not to comply” with the injunction, with the express intent to neutralize the external-payment option rather than to recover its costs. Apple has framed its commission structure differently, telling the justices that regulators around the world are watching the case to determine what rate it may charge on covered purchases abroad. The single legal question now sits inside a technical record that has already drawn two unanimous findings against Apple below. The grant came a month after Kagan’s denial of the stay request.

The narrower grant was itself a partial loss for Apple. The justices declined to consider the company’s argument that the original injunction should not bind every iOS developer worldwide, an argument Apple had leaned on Trump v. CASA to support. With those questions off the table, the appeal turns on the boundary between what the 2021 injunction said and what it meant to forbid.

The technical record below is unusually thick for a contempt appeal. That record makes the legal question the justices are answering a matter of law applied to facts, rather than a fresh factual dispute.

What Each Side Wins and Loses

The two possible outcomes at the justices divide along the lines the parties have already drawn. A ruling for Apple could validate the use of large commissions on external purchases as a way to recover most of its standard revenue. A ruling for Epic would likely leave Apple unable to collect most of what it would otherwise earn on transactions that leave its in-app purchase system.

If Apple wins, the company could return to a commission structure that preserves most of its standard 15 to 30 percent take, even on transactions that leave Apple’s IAP system. The 9th Circuit had already sent the case back to the district court to consider what fee, if any, would be permissible, leaving Apple room to argue for a non-zero commission regardless of the contempt finding. If Epic prevails, the practical floor for Apple’s cut on external transactions would remain at zero pending a fresh fee calculation. For developers, the difference comes down to the percentage of revenue they keep when a customer pays outside the App Store. The commission question reaches beyond U.S. App Store users, given the Apple filing’s warning about markets abroad.

Regulators in the European Union, Japan, and the United Kingdom have passed rules addressing similar commission practices, and Apple has told the justices those frameworks could amplify or constrain what survives U.S. litigation. With the return of Fortnite to the App Store worldwide completed on May 19, 2026, Epic cast the U.S. case as the “final battle” over Apple’s fees. Both companies agree the answer will reach beyond the U.S. App Store. Apple’s petition framed the dispute as one that could “reshape the global app marketplace,” a global stakes argument Epic’s filings treat as confirmation of what is at issue.

Where Things Stand Until the Court Rules

Until the Supreme Court issues its decision, the 27 percent commission stays off Apple’s books for external-link purchases in the United States. Judge Rogers’ April 2025 order remains in effect, and Apple has changed its U.S. App Store rules to comply with the injunction. The Supreme Court has so far declined twice to step in on Apple’s behalf, denying cert in the original dispute and rejecting Apple’s last-minute stay within an hour of Epic’s opposition.

Developers should expect the status quo to hold through argument. The court’s review is happening on a single legal point, not the underlying commission rate, so no change to Apple’s link-out rules takes effect before the ruling. The 9th Circuit’s December 2025 affirmance left room for Apple to argue what, if any, future commission would be permissible, an issue now before the district court. Fortnite is back on U.S. iOS and on App Stores worldwide, restoring Epic’s most visible revenue stream to Apple’s storefront, with oral argument in the Supreme Court’s October term and a decision possible by June 2027. The docket is on the Supreme Court’s website for anyone tracking the case.

• The 27 percent commission is paused on U.S. App Store external-link purchases
• Apple’s stay request was denied by Justice Kagan on May 6, 2026
• Oral argument in the appeal is expected in the Supreme Court’s next term
• Fortnite is available on iOS worldwide

Frequently Asked Questions

When will the Supreme Court decide the Apple-Epic contempt case?

Oral argument is expected in the Supreme Court term that begins in October 2026. A decision could follow by June 2027, per the Baltimore Sun’s July 2 report. The case is captioned Apple Inc. v. Epic Games Inc.

What is the 27 percent fee Apple was fined over?

Apple charged developers 27 percent on purchases made through external payment links within seven days of a tap. The fee was added in January 2024 after a 2021 injunction forced Apple to allow developers to point users to outside payment options.

Who found Apple in contempt of court?

U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, sitting in Oakland, California in the Northern District of California. She issued the original 2021 injunction and found Apple in civil contempt in April 2025 after Apple added the 27 percent commission on outside payments. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco unanimously affirmed the contempt finding in December 2025. The Supreme Court has agreed to review that affirmance at Apple’s request.

Will this case change what iPhone users pay for apps?

For now, no. The 27 percent commission is paused under the April 2025 contempt order, so external-link purchases no longer include the disputed fee. If the Supreme Court rules for Apple, the company could be allowed to charge some future commission on those purchases, and developers may adjust their prices. If Epic prevails, the practical floor for Apple’s cut is likely to remain at zero pending a fresh fee calculation.

Why did Apple bring the case to the Supreme Court?

Apple wants the contempt finding thrown out, arguing that it violated no express term of the 2021 injunction. The company has called a contempt ruling based on the spirit of an order, rather than its specific wording, a recipe for abuse that future judges and companies could exploit.