In a bold move, Apple has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene after a lower court found it in contempt for charging a 27% fee on external App Store payments, according to Reuters. This effectively nullifies an injunction meant to free developers, pushing the legal battle to the highest judicial level.

In 2021, an injunction ordered Apple to allow developers to direct users to external purchasing options, according to AppleMagazine. However, Apple later implemented a 27% commission on purchases made through those external links, leading to a contempt of court finding.

The Supreme Court's decision will determine the true extent of Apple's control over its App Store ecosystem and the efficacy of judicial remedies against tech giants, a battle that continues to shape developer fortunes after the Epic lawsuit.

How Apple Challenged the Order

  • Apple introduced new rules, including a 27% commission on some outside App Store purchases, after the original injunction, according to TradingView.
  • The company allowed outside links but charged a 27% commission on purchases made through them within a defined period, according to AppleMagazine. Epic Games argued this fee structure preserved economic barriers for developers, effectively nullifying the injunction's intent to foster competition.

Apple's immediate move to implement a 27% fee, despite the injunction, suggests a calculated strategy. This approach appears designed to delay compliance and test the limits of judicial enforcement, rather than genuinely adhering to the court's intent.

The Contempt Ruling

In April 2025, a judge found Apple in contempt of court for willfully violating a 2021 injunction according to MacRumors. This ruling specifically cited Apple's high fees on link-outs, which then barred the company from collecting any fees on external links within the U.S. App Store.

The Ninth Circuit previously ruled that Apple charging a 27% fee on external payments defeated the original purpose of allowing those links, according to TechCrunch. This judicial rationale showed how Apple's fee structure undermined the injunction's intent, effectively maintaining its walled garden.