Justice Elena Kagan, acting for the full Court, denied Apple Inc.'s emergency application on May 6 to stay a Ninth Circuit ruling that affirmed a contempt finding against the company in its protracted dispute with Epic Games over App Store commissions [1][2]. The denial leaves Apple subject to the contempt designation while litigation over permissible commission rates proceeds in district court [1].
The contempt finding stems from U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers's 2021 injunction, issued under California's unfair competition law, which required Apple to allow developers to include in their apps external links directing users to alternative payment methods [2]. Apple's implementation of that order drew the contempt finding after the district court concluded the company had structured its external-link fee system in a manner that frustrated the injunction's purpose [1][2]. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the contempt ruling in December but left open the question of what commission rates Apple may lawfully charge on purchases completed through external links, permitting Apple to litigate that discrete issue further [2].
Apple sought the Supreme Court stay as a procedural shield, arguing that continued operation under the contempt label and the uncertainty over permissible fees caused immediate, irreparable harm [1]. Kagan's denial, issued without recorded dissent, means those arguments did not satisfy the high bar required for emergency relief: a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm absent a stay, and a balance of equities favoring the applicant [2]. The case now returns to Judge Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California, where the commission-rate question will be resolved on a record the district court will develop [1][2].
The practical stakes extend beyond the two parties. Apple's App Store generates an estimated $100 billion in annual developer billings globally, and the commission structure at issue, which Apple set at 27% for external-link transactions, sits at the center of ongoing regulatory scrutiny in the United States, the European Union, and elsewhere [1]. A district court ruling on permissible rates, whatever its outcome, is likely to generate another appellate cycle, meaning the litigation remains unresolved well into 2027 at the earliest [2].
Comments (0)