Epic Games deals Apple fresh blow in App Store fee fight

Apple’s bid to freeze court-ordered App Store changes while it pursues U.S. Supreme Court review got rejected Tuesday as the latest decision in the iPhone giant’s long-running legal fight with Fortnite maker Epic Games. So the clock is now ticking on compliance pending another decision over what Apple can charge in fees.

Epic Games deals Apple fresh blow in App Store fee fight

In Epic Games v Apple, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed its own earlier decision that had allowed Apple to keep its App Store commission structure temporarily unchanged while it prepares a petition for Supreme Court review. The ruling, the latest in Apple’s longstanding legal battle with Epic Games, means the lower court’s injunction requiring Apple to loosen certain App Store payment rules is now back in force. And ultimately, the final outcome of the case has enormous stakes for Apple.

What the court decided

A 9th Circuit three-judge panel granted Epic’s motion for reconsideration and reversed a April 6, 2026, order that had stayed the mandate pending Apple’s filing of a certiorari petition with the Supreme Court.

In plain terms: the pause that had been keeping Apple’s current rules intact just got lifted. The injunction requiring Apple to allow developers to link users to outside payment options — without being subject to Apple’s standard commission — is now active.

The court was blunt in its reasoning. The judges agreed with Epic’s arguments that Apple had not raised a substantial question for review carrying a “reasonable probability” that four Supreme Court justices would vote to grant certiorari, nor a “significant possibility of reversal” of the circuit court’s prior decision.

Why Apple’s arguments fell flat

Apple’s delaying tactics have come to an end! Now Epic v Apple returns to Judge Gonzales Rogers for hearings on exactly what fees Apple can charge to recoup costs of reviewing apps using competing payment methods. https://t.co/eukYzpu0dY

— Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic) April 29, 2026

Apple had argued that keeping the stay in place was necessary to avoid what it called “premature” lower-court proceedings while it sought a higher-court ruling. The 9th Circuit wasn’t convinced.

The court noted that even if the Supreme Court agreed with Apple’s arguments, further proceedings — particularly on the question of commission rates — would still be required. And those proceedings would likely look largely the same regardless of whether certiorari was granted. In other words, Apple couldn’t credibly claim that letting the mandate proceed would cause it irreparable harm.

The panel also pointed to history working against Apple. The Supreme Court had previously declined to hear Apple’s challenges to the injunction’s scope. And it also previously declined to take up the question of whether courts may properly consider the “spirit” of an injunction when imposing sanctions in contempt proceedings. Apple failed to demonstrate that the current appeal raised a meaningful circuit split on that question.

The backstory: years in the making

This ruling is the latest chapter in a legal saga that began in 2020 when Epic deliberately triggered a conflict with Apple by introducing a direct payment option in Fortnite, bypassing Apple’s in-app purchase system. Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store, and Epic sued.

The original district court ruling was something of a split decision — Epic didn’t win on most antitrust claims — but the court issued an injunction preventing Apple from stopping developers from including links or buttons directing users to outside payment options. Apple was later found in contempt for dragging its feet on compliance. And the 9th Circuit unanimously upheld the injunction and the contempt finding earlier this year.

Following that, the 9th Circuit granted Apple’s motion to stay the mandate in early April — a move that Epic quickly challenged. It argued the stay was “another delay tactic to prevent the court from establishing significant and permanent bounds on Apple’s ability to charge junk fees on third-party payments.”

Apple had responded to Epic’s challenge by arguing there was no reason to revisit the stay, and that keeping it in place would avoid unnecessary lower-court proceedings while it sought Supreme Court review. Epic fired back that Apple hadn’t shown any real need for the stay, and that a Supreme Court appeal wouldn’t eliminate the need for further lower-court proceedings anyway — meaning both processes could move forward simultaneously.

Tuesday’s ruling sided with Epic on all counts.

What this means for developers and users

For app developers, particularly those selling digital goods or subscriptions, the reinstatement of the injunction is meaningful. It means Apple must allow developers to include links or buttons in their apps pointing users to the developers’ own websites to complete purchases — a change that could let developers offer lower prices outside the App Store ecosystem, where Apple typically takes a 15–30% cut.

For iPhone and iPad users, practical effects may take time materialize. Developers will need to update their apps to take advantage of the new rules. And it’s unclear how quickly — or creatively — they’ll act. But the legal foundation for those changes is now firmly back in place.

App Store fee fight: Apple can still play tenuous Supreme Court card

The story isn’t over. Apple can still file its certiorari petition with the Supreme Court. And the justices could yet choose to take up the case. But Tuesday’s ruling makes clear the 9th Circuit believes that outcome unlikely. And the company can no longer count on the courts giving it a procedural breathing room while it waits.

Apple has not publicly commented on the ruling.

For a company that generates billions of dollars annually from App Store commissions, the stakes in this litigation are enormous. What started as a fight over a single game could ultimately reshape the fundamental economics of how software is sold on Apple’s platforms.

David Snow

David Snow, an expert on Apple hardware and software, writes on a variety of technological and cultural topics for Cult of Mac. They include Apple news, technology buying guides, and features about computer setups and Apple TV shows and movies.

With 30 years of experience covering technology and other subjects, he has written and edited for numerous print and online publications, including CMP Media, TechTV.com, CNET, Wired News, Red Herring magazine, Law.com, The National Law Journal and Law Technology News magazine. Among other roles, he served as executive editor of the Law.com network of websites and editorial director, technology, for ALM Media.

Snow graduated with a B.A. from Syracuse University with majors in magazine journalism and psychology. While there, he worked as a reporter for The Daily Orange newspaper and associate editor of Equal Time magazine.

Founder of the blog At the Waterline, he can be reached on X (formerly Twitter) via @atthewaterline and on Mastodon via @dsnow.