The US Supreme Court rejected Apple Inc.’s latest attempt to halt lower-court proceedings in its long-running dispute with Epic Games, leaving the iPhone maker under pressure to submit a proposal governing commissions on purchases made outside its App Store.
The court denied Apple’s request for a stay Thursday, according to AppleInsider, which reported that the company had sought to delay proceedings while a separate Supreme Court review of the dispute remains pending. The decision means Apple must continue complying with orders from the federal district court overseeing the case even as the justices prepare to consider elements of Apple’s appeal.
The litigation stems from the yearslong fight between Apple and Epic over restrictions governing payments and competition on the App Store. Epic, the maker of “Fortnite,” challenged Apple’s control over app distribution and payment systems, turning the case into a closely watched test of the competitive limits that can be imposed by operators of major digital platforms.
According to AppleInsider, the immediate dispute concerns Apple’s plan for commissions under an injunction arising from the Epic litigation. A federal district court ordered Apple this week to provide documentation related to a proposed commission structure within 24 hours after the company failed to secure an earlier stay.
Apple then asked the Supreme Court to pause the lower-court proceedings, AppleInsider reported. That request temporarily gave the company an additional 24 hours, but the extension expired at 5 p.m. Eastern time Thursday as the Supreme Court declined to grant the stay. AppleInsider reported that Apple had not supplied the required paperwork by the deadline at the time its article was published.
The ruling creates an unusual procedural split in which the lower court can continue implementing its orders while the Supreme Court separately considers Apple’s broader challenge. AppleInsider reported that the justices are expected to take up the company’s appeal in October.
For Apple, the immediate consequence is that it must continue negotiating and litigating the terms under which it can collect commissions tied to transactions outside the App Store, according to AppleInsider. The company has spent years defending an ecosystem in which it controls app distribution on its devices and historically collected commissions on many digital transactions.
Related: Apple Hires American Airlines Veteran to Lead Government Affairs
The case has also become part of a broader antitrust debate over whether dominant technology platforms can use control of their marketplaces to restrict how developers communicate with customers or direct them toward competing payment options.
Epic’s original federal antitrust claims did not produce the sweeping victory the game developer sought. In 2024, the Supreme Court declined to hear appeals from both companies after earlier litigation, leaving intact a lower-court outcome that largely favored Apple on federal antitrust claims while preserving an injunction addressing Apple’s anti-steering restrictions. AppleInsider reported at the time that the injunction required changes to practices that limited developers’ ability to tell users about alternative purchasing methods.
The dispute nevertheless continued over Apple’s implementation of that injunction and the commissions it sought to impose on purchases initiated through external links. Those proceedings have kept alive questions about how much economic control Apple may retain when developers direct customers away from its own payment system.
AppleInsider reported Thursday that there are no further avenues for Apple to delay the current lower-court process before the Supreme Court considers the pending appeal. As a result, the company must comply with the district court’s orders and continue litigating the commission issue in the meantime.
The eventual Supreme Court decision could have consequences beyond Apple and Epic by helping define how broadly federal courts can structure injunctions affecting digital marketplaces and how those orders interact with the business models of large technology platforms.
Epic Chief Executive Officer Tim Sweeney has already characterized the latest phase of the litigation as a victory, according to AppleInsider. But the legal outcome remains unsettled, with the Supreme Court’s coming review potentially altering the framework under which the lower courts are now proceeding.
Source: AppleInsider