Supreme Court Rejects Apple's Bid to Pause App Store Contempt Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected Apple's request to pause a lower court order holding the company in civil contempt over its App Store payment policies. Justice Elena Kagan denied the emergency application on Wednesday, clearing the way for further proceedings in the ongoing legal battle with Epic Games.



The decision sends Apple back to the U.S. District Court in Oakland, California, where Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers will oversee additional proceedings over what commission Apple may be allowed to charge developers for transactions processed outside of its proprietary in-app purchasing system. Apple had asked the high court to block this exact scenario when it filed an emergency application last month, hoping to stall the remand process while it prepared a formal petition for review.


The contempt finding stems from Apple's initial compliance strategy following the original 2021 injunction. After being ordered to allow developers to link out to alternative payment methods, Apple introduced a framework that still levied a 27 percent commission on many external sales completed within seven days of clicking a link. Apple typically charges up to 30 percent for purchases made directly within the App Store. Epic Games argued the new structure effectively rendered the alternative payment links useless. Last year, Judge Gonzalez Rogers agreed and held Apple in civil contempt.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that contempt ruling in December, concluding that Apple violated the spirit of the original injunction. Last month, the appeals court lifted a temporary stay on its mandate, prompting Apple's urgent appeal to the Supreme Court.

In its application to Justice Kagan, Apple argued that the original injunction never explicitly prohibited commissions. The company also pushed back against the broad scope of the order, taking issue with the fact that it applies to millions of developers worldwide rather than just Epic Games. Apple cautioned that regulators across the globe are watching the case to determine what commission rates might be acceptable in other international markets.

Epic urged the Supreme Court to reject the delay. The game publisher argued that granting a stay would simply allow Apple to continue profiting unfairly at the expense of both developers and consumers. The Supreme Court's denial means the district court will now move forward with proceedings over Apple's external payment commission structure.