Epic’s challenge to the App Store toll booth largely failed as an antitrust case, but the surviving anti-steering injunction, and the 2025 contempt ruling enforcing it, forced open external payments on iOS in the US.
LATEST DEVELOPMENT · SEP 14, 2026
On September 14, 2026, Apple filed its opening merits brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in No. 25-1311, asking the justices to reverse or vacate the Ninth Circuit’s civil contempt finding. Apple argues contempt cannot be based on violation of an injunction’s unstated “spirit” without clear notice of the proscribed conduct. Epic’s response brief is due November 13, 2026.
BACKGROUND
Epic engineered its own ejection from the App Store in 2020 by sneaking a direct-payment option into Fortnite, then sued. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple was not a monopolist under federal law but enjoined its anti-steering rules under California’s Unfair Competition Law. The Ninth Circuit affirmed and the Supreme Court declined review.
The case’s second act proved more consequential: in April 2025 the court held that Apple willfully violated the injunction, condemning its 27% ‘link-out’ commission and compliance theater, referring the matter for a criminal contempt investigation, and barring Apple from taking any commission on qualifying external purchases. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the contempt finding in December 2025 while vacating the permanent zero-commission bar for retailoring on remand, and the Supreme Court, after refusing to stay the mandate, agreed in June 2026 to decide whether contempt can rest on an injunction’s ‘spirit’. Meanwhile developers steer users to web checkout.
TIMELINE
-
SEP 14, 2026FILINGApple files opening merits brief with U.S. Supreme CourtApple asked the Supreme Court to reverse or vacate the Ninth Circuit’s civil contempt finding, arguing that civil contempt cannot be based on a violation of an injunction’s unstated “spirit” without clear textual notice of the prohibited conduct. Epic’s respondent brief is due November 13, 2026.
-
AUG 13, 2026APPEALJustice Kagan denies Apple’s emergency stay application (No. 26A194)Apple asked the Supreme Court on August 12 to pause the injunction’s link-out obligations pending its merits appeal. An administrative stay expired on August 13 and the application was denied.
-
AUG 13, 2026FILINGApple files proposed commission structure with district courtApple submitted a filing proposing tiered commissions of 15% for standard apps, 10% for its Video Partner, News Partner and Mini Apps programs and for subscription renewals, and 5% for Small Business Program apps, on purchases made outside the App Store. Epic Games immediately objected, calling the fees far outside the bounds of the Ninth Circuit’s guidance and stating it will appeal any rate above 0%.
-
AUG 11, 2026PROCEDURALDistrict court denies Apple’s motion to stay remand proceedingsJudge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers denied Apple’s request to pause the remand commission-rate proceedings while the Supreme Court reviews the contempt finding, stating the evidentiary issues on the appropriate commission are factual matters not before the Supreme Court. Apple was ordered to file its proposed fee structure within 24 hours, with Epic given 60 days to respond.
-
JUL 20, 2026FILINGApple replies in support of stay, citing paused securities fraud caseApple filed its reply brief supporting its motion to stay the remand proceedings, additionally citing a newly paused, unrelated securities fraud lawsuit against it as support for pausing the Epic litigation while the Supreme Court reviews the contempt ruling.
-
JUL 10, 2026FILINGEpic files opposition to Apple’s motion to stay remand proceedingsEpic Games filed its opposition to Apple’s motion to stay the district court’s external-link commission remand proceedings pending Supreme Court review, arguing Apple’s request is another delay tactic and that the district court must still set a commission rate regardless of the outcome.
-
JUL 2026PROCEDURALSupreme Court sets extended merits-briefing scheduleThe Supreme Court granted an extension of time for merits briefing in No. 25-1311, setting Apple’s opening brief and joint appendix due September 14, 2026, and Epic’s response brief due November 13, 2026, with oral argument not yet scheduled.
-
JUN 30, 2026APPEALSupreme Court grants certiorari (No. 25-1311)Review is limited to whether civil contempt may rest on violating an injunction’s ‘spirit’. The Court had refused to stay the Ninth Circuit’s mandate on 6 May 2026. Argument is expected in the October Term 2026.
-
DEC 11, 2025APPEALNinth Circuit affirms the contempt findingThe panel (No. 25-2935) upheld the willful-contempt finding and most of the remedial order but vacated the permanent bar on any commission for linked-out purchases, remanding for a purgeable sanction or a properly tailored modification.
-
APR 30, 2025ENFORCEMENTCourt finds Apple in willful contempt of the injunctionJudge Gonzalez Rogers barred any commission on qualifying external-link purchases, found that a senior Apple executive testified falsely, and referred Apple and its finance vice-president to federal prosecutors for a criminal contempt investigation.
-
JAN 16, 2024APPEALSupreme Court declines review. Injunction takes effectApple began permitting external purchase links in the US but charged a 27% commission (12% for small developers) and imposed strict formatting rules, the compliance scheme later held contemptuous.
-
APR 24, 2023APPEALNinth Circuit affirms the judgment
-
SEP 10, 2021JUDGMENTJudgment: no federal monopolization, but anti-steering injunction issued
-
AUG 13, 2020FILINGEpic triggers Fortnite’s removal and sues Apple