Apple asks judge to pause Epic Games case during Supreme Court review

Apple has submitted a request to pause further proceedings in its legal battle with Epic Games in the Northern District of California while the Supreme Court reviews part of the case. Here are the details.

Apple moves to pause lower-court proceedings while Supreme Court reviews contempt finding

Late last month, the Supreme Court agreed to review whether Apple could be found in civil contempt of a 2021 injunction requiring the company to let developers direct users to payment options outside the App Store.

After the injunction took effect, Apple began allowing external purchase links, but charged developers a 27% commission on transactions completed through them.

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers later ruled that the commission, along with Apple’s restrictions on how developers could present those links, violated the injunction and held the company in contempt.

Apple, however, argued that the original injunction did not prohibit it from charging a commission on purchases completed outside the App Store. That dispute led to a series of appeals and related proceedings that have now reached the Supreme Court.

Even though the Supreme Court agreed to hear Apple’s case, the remand proceedings were still slated to continue in the lower court, where Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers would consider what commission, if any, Apple could charge on purchases made after users followed external links.

After the Supreme Court agreed to hear Apple’s appeal, the company signaled that it would seek a stay, or pause, in the lower-court proceedings, arguing that the Supreme Court’s decision could ultimately affect the legal basis and scope of the remand proceedings.

Apple has now submitted its motion to stay, making the following central argument:

The sole basis for these remand proceedings is the Ninth Circuit’s ruling affirming the civil contempt finding. If the Supreme Court reverses or vacates the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance of this Court’s contempt finding, either (i) there will be no basis for this Court to embark on a complex remand proceeding to approve Apple’s commission rate on linked-out purchases or (ii) any further remand proceedings will not take place pursuant to the vacated or reversed Ninth Circuit decision. In either event, the Ninth Circuit’s statements or direction regarding an appropriate commission will no longer be operative. Further, the Supreme Court’s decision may provide guidance concerning the scope of this Court’s initial injunction and any further proceedings, including as to Apple’s commission rate on linked-out purchases. In addition, the Supreme Court’s decision could result in a remand to the Ninth Circuit for further consideration of the contempt issue, which would result in a new Ninth Circuit decision. In all events, it would be highly inefficient and prejudicial for this Court to embark on a technical and important inquiry into the commission Apple may charge pursuant to a Ninth Circuit ruling that the Supreme Court has now agreed to review, and therefore that may be reversed or vacated.

With the motion to stay now filed, Epic has until July 10 to file its response, and Apple must file a reply by July 13.

After that, if the court denies Apple’s motion, the company will have to file its external-link commission proposal within 24 hours of the judge’s ruling. If the request is granted as filed, however, the lower-court proceedings will remain on hold while the Supreme Court considers Apple’s appeal of the contempt ruling.

As a reminder, Apple had also asked the Supreme Court to review its request that the decisions in the Epic Games case apply only to Epic, rather than to all developers with apps in the US App Store, but the Supreme Court rejected this request.

Worth checking out on Amazon