SCOTUS rejects Apple's request to temporarily block a judicial order in the Epic Games lawsuit that found Apple in violation of court-mandated App Store changes
ReutersMike Scarcella
Context & Ripple Effects
The Epic litigation has repeatedly tested whether Apple can preserve App Store rules that limit developers’ ability to direct users to outside payment options. Earlier coverage shows Apple’s efforts to pause or overturn the relevant remedy were rejected first on appeal and then when the Supreme Court declined to hear the broader appeals.
The current denial concerns a later finding that Apple violated the court-mandated changes, making this less about the original rule than about enforcement of the remedy. It also follows a parallel Supreme Court refusal to halt major Play Store changes in Epic’s case against Google.
First-order effects
Apple must comply with the judicial order while its challenge proceeds; the requested temporary shield is unavailable.
Developers covered by the order retain the practical ability to steer users toward payment options beyond Apple’s in-app system under the court’s required terms.
Second-order effects
Apple’s App Store commercial model faces more immediate pressure where developers can route transactions outside its payment flow, while developers gain leverage in deciding how to present payment choices to users.
The Apple and Google rulings together give other platform operators and app developers a clearer signal that court-ordered store reforms may remain in force during appeals, rather than being routinely paused.
Third-order effects
If enforcement continues, the key structural change is from a platform’s unilateral store-policy control toward court-supervised constraints on how mobile marketplaces govern payment steering.
The paired Epic cases could make remedy compliance—not merely liability findings—the central antitrust risk for major app-store operators, though the ultimate boundaries remain dependent on further litigation.
The trend: This is one data point in a broader shift toward judicially enforced opening of mobile app-store payment and distribution rules.
Epic has always supported Apple charging developers for actual, incremental costs they incur for App Store services, which are far less than their 27% junk fees. Epic v Apple established that human reviewers spend 6-12 minutesper review. So, $5 per review? $10? $100?
The Supreme Court has considered Apple's delaying motion and found it unworthy. Now Apple will have to come clean with the District Court and show exactly what its costs are for reviewing apps with competing payment systems, so they can bill developers for those costs.
🚨 Justice Elena Kagan, acting alone and without referring the matter to the full Court, denied Apple's emergency request to pause the Epic Games App Store case. The lower courts found Apple violated a court order requiring it to let app developers direct users to outside [image]
Great news - the Supreme Court denied Apple's delay tactics. Now we head back to the District Court to determine what Apple can charge for only the necessary costs of implementing external purchase links.
@tnertz I was going to post my thoughts here, but it is more telling to post Phil Schiller's thoughts from this email in public evidence to the Epic v Apple trial: [image]
This is literally Apple going to the Supreme Court because there don't want the district judge to *hold a hearing* about what an actually fair commission level for external purchases would be. (presumably because they worry it'll then be applied worldwide) [embedded post]