Maya Robertson
Apple is preparing to take its long-running legal dispute with Epic Games to the U.S. Supreme Court, while attempting to delay further proceedings tied to App Store commission rules.
In a recent filing, Apple asked the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to pause the process that would determine what fees it can charge developers for transactions completed via external payment links. The company argued that allowing a lower court to set a commission structure before potential Supreme Court review could result in unnecessary policy changes if the ruling is later overturned.
The request follows a series of decisions stemming from the dispute over Apple’s App Store practices. Courts previously required Apple to allow developers to include links directing users to alternative payment methods outside the App Store. After being found in violation of a 2021 injunction tied to the case, Apple removed commissions on purchases made through those external links.
Earlier, Apple had attempted to apply a reduced commission—ranging from 12% to 27%—to transactions completed خارج its in-app payment system. However, the appeals court determined that approach conflicted with the intent of the original ruling, as it limited the practical benefit of alternative payment options. While the court upheld the violation finding, it did not establish a specific commission rate, instead directing the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California to determine what would be considered reasonable.
Apple is now seeking to halt that process. The company proposed maintaining the current framework, where no commission is charged on purchases made via external links, until the Supreme Court decides whether it will take up the case. Apple has yet to formally file its petition, and there is no guarantee the Court will agree to hear it.
The broader case dates back to 2020, when Epic Games introduced external payment options in its app, challenging Apple’s commission model. While Apple largely prevailed in earlier rulings—avoiding a monopoly designation—the courts required changes to its anti-steering policies, enabling developers to guide users toward alternative purchasing channels.
In its expected appeal, Apple is likely to challenge both the scope of the injunction and the legal reasoning behind the contempt ruling. The company maintains that the original order did not explicitly define acceptable commission structures and argues that it should not be penalized based on interpretations of the ruling’s intent.
If the Supreme Court declines to hear the case, the appeals court’s decision will remain in effect, allowing the district court to proceed with setting a commission rate. If accepted, the case could have broader implications for how platform operators manage fees and govern external payment mechanisms across digital marketplaces.
Comments
Loading…