The Supreme Court will begin hearing cases again in October, which is where Apple hopes to convince the court to throw out its injunction violation against Epic. Here are its arguments why.
Apple and Epic have been battling each other for over six years over how Apple operates the App Store and charges commissions. The initial lawsuit ended in near total victory for Apple except for a provision about anti-steering practices.
The District Court found Apple in violation of an injunction after it allegedly failed to provide a competitive alternative to anti-steering. Apple's latest filings restate its arguments for the Supreme Court, suggesting the injunction violation was found in error and exceeded the District Court's limits.
This filing focuses on one of two of Apple's arguments it initially made to the Supreme Court. It defines that the Ninth Circuit should not follow the "spirit of the law" in determining a violation versus the text of the law provided.
Apple states that there was no mention of commissions in the original mandate to change its anti-steering practices. Apple did provide lower rates, at 12% and 27%, but it argues that wasn't the purpose of the ruling, nor was it laid out in text.
The second argument involving the court's scope was not included in this filing, as it is no longer under consideration by the Supreme Court. When the Court agreed to review Apple's filing, it only said that it would discuss the argument surrounding the "spirit of the law."
Previously, Apple argued that the District Court exceeded its bounds by providing a universal injunction in the first place. It had used the CASA case as historic precedent for why the injunction violation should have only applied to Epic in this case. That argument is not being considered.
There have been zero commissions charged for external purchases since the injunction violation occurred. The ongoing battle in the Circuit Courts had Apple provide new commission rates, which Epic immediately rejected.
Unless the Supreme Court renders all of this moot, Epic will likely continue to fight until it convinces the courts that zero percent is the only allowable rate for external purchases. It attempted those arguments in the EU, but ultimately lost.
Where Apple's commissions stand today
In the United States, the current fee structure for App Store transactions is fairly straightforward for apps that conduct all of their business through Apple's system.
Apple's commissions are still under fire from all fronts
App and in-app purchase transactions cost a standard 30% of the total. That is the headline 30% that is brought up in discussions over Apple's fees.
However, developers are able to reduce this number in a number of ways.
App subscriptions attract the usual 30% fee in the first year. If the user continues with the subscription for a second year or beyond, that drops to 15%.
There's also the App Store Small Business Program, which will reduce the fee to 15%. That is, so long as your business makes $1 million or less per year.
If you go over the $1 million, the 30% rate applies again. However, if you go below the $1 million barrier again the following year, you can re-apply.
Other programs also exist, such as the Video Partner Program, the News Partner Program, and the Mini Apps Partner Program, which also reduce the amount.
There are apps that the fees do not apply to, or apply in different ways.
For example, App Store fees specifically apply only to digital goods and services. That means ordering a book from Amazon or food from DoorDash don't have to pay that fee.
There is one more element which is at the core of Apple's remaining legal battle with Epic, and that is for fees when developers link to external purchase systems outside of the App Store system.
Previously, Apple was ordered to change its anti-steering rules to allow developers to add links to purchase options outside the App Store experience. However, it left room for Apple to demand a fee for facilitating the links.
After an initial 2024 proposal that trimmed the fee to 27%, or 12% if you were in the App Store Small Business Program, Apple was told to try again.
The August 2026 attempt instead proposed a 15% fee for standard apps, 10% for those under Video, News, and Mini Apps partner programs and subscription renewals. The lowest, 5%, was for the Small Business Program apps.
Apple vs Epic: The Story So Far
The entire affair started in August 2020, as Epic updated the iOS Fortnite app so that users could pay Epic directly instead of using Apple's in-app payments system. Apple pulled the game from the App Store for violating App Store Guidelines, with Google doing the same for the Google Play Store.
Epic's 'Fortnite' continues to pick on Apple throughout the lawsuit
The same day as the removal, Epic filed a lawsuit against Apple, accusing Apple of attempting to control markets, block competition, and stifle innovation.
Epic wanted Apple to make massive changes so it could be freed from paying fees. This included allowing third-party app storefronts to exist on iOS, and allowing developers to use alternative payment processing systems.
After a lengthy court battle, in September 2021, Apple prevailed over a majority fo the claims. The court deemed that Apple wasn't an illegal monopolist, as well as requiring Epic to pay damages.
However, Apple didn't manage to convince the court over its policy to ban calls to action and links to use external payment mechanisms. Apple repeatedly appealed but failed to get that ruling quashed, though it did manage to hold off on the ruling being put into play.
In April 2023, Apple prevailed in the Ninth Court of Appeals, rejecting claims by Epic that App Store policies violated federal laws. However, the anti-steering rule decision was maintained, meaning Apple still had to allow outbound links.
Apple still tried to get the ruling it failed to win corrected, by appealing to the Supreme Court. On January 16, 2024, the Supreme Court declined to hear Apple's and Epic's appeals, concluding that phase of the courtroom brawl.
Of course, this didn't end the legal fight, as it instead focused on antisteering compliance. By April 2025, the original court found Apple in violation of the anti-steering injunction.
Apple finally updated its App Store Review Guidelines in May 2025 to comply with the injunction. Fighting continued over Apple's intention to collect commissions on outside payments.
As it stands, Apple and Epic have agreed to a timeline to determine the fees that should be paid for external transactions. Also, the Supreme Court decided on June 30, 2026 that it would hear Apple's arguments that lower courts made mistakes in two areas of the case, which could change the situation once again.
