Apple will not be able to delay a district court battle over fee calculations while it waits to hear whether the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on the latest developments in its long-running dispute with Epic Games.
On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier decision letting Apple keep its current zero-fee link-out commission structure in place while it appeals to the Supreme Court. The reversal means Apple now has to return to a lower court to work out what fees it can charge developers who steer customers to outside payment options.
Apple won the pause earlier this month by arguing that it shouldn't have to overhaul its fee structure twice if the Supreme Court ultimately ruled in its favor. Apple stopped collecting commissions from links to external purchase options in U.S. apps when ordered to do so last year, and the company wanted to keep the no-commission setup while waiting on the Supreme Court.
In response, Epic Games immediately filed two motions: one said it hadn't been given time enough to prepare a response to Apple's stay request, and another asking the court to reject the original request.
The three-judge panel granted Epic's motion for reconsideration. The judges said Apple hadn't shown that the Supreme Court was likely to take the case, and pointed out that the high court already chose not to hear Apple's challenges once back in 2024. They also rejected Apple's claim that being forced into lower-court hearings would cause real harm.
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney shared the news in a post on X, adding that "Apple's delaying tactics have come to an end!"
Apple's delaying tactics have come to an end! Now Epic v Apple returns to Judge Gonzales Rogers for hearings on exactly what fees Apple can charge to recoup costs of reviewing apps using competing payment methods. https://t.co/eukYzpu0dY — Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic) April 29, 2026
The case now heads back to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in California, who will determine what commission Apple can collect on purchases made through external links, if any. Apple can still petition the Supreme Court while those proceedings move ahead.
The dispute traces all the way back to the original Epic Games trial, which Apple largely won. However, one exception was a 2021 ruling from Judge Gonzalez Rogers ordering Apple to relax its "anti-steering" rules and let developers point users to outside payment options.
Apple complied with the ruling, but only slightly lowered its fees, which led few developers to even bother adding links. Epic subsequently returned to court, and the judge found Apple in willful violation of the original injunction. Consequently, it barred Apple from collecting any commission on external links.
Apple appealed and dropped the link fees while the case moved forward, arguing that the ruling was unconstitutional and that it should receive compensation for its technology. In December 2025, the appeals court delivered a mixed ruling: Apple had violated the injunction, but the company should still be able to charge something reasonable for its technology. That sent the question of what that fee should look like back to the district court.
Apple is now hoping the Supreme Court will go further and throw out the district court's ruling altogether, but in the meantime, Apple will head back to court to determine the reasonable fee that it will be able to charge for purchases made using external links in apps.
