Supreme Court Refuses Apple Emergency Stay — App Store Contempt Case Moves Forward Against 27% External Fee

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to halt a federal contempt order against Apple stemming from the ongoing Epic Games antitrust dispute. Justice Elena Kagan denied Apple’s emergency stay application, clearing the path for contempt enforcement proceedings over Apple’s 27% commission on in-app purchases completed via external payment links — a practice U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found directly violated her 2021 injunction.

What the court found

Judge Gonzalez Rogers issued the original 2021 injunction ordering Apple to allow developers to direct users to outside payment systems. Apple complied technically by allowing links, then implemented a 27% commission on any purchases completed through those links — functionally matching or exceeding the 30% App Store rate the injunction was intended to circumvent. In 2025, the judge held Apple in civil contempt, calling the commission structure a deliberate attempt to undermine the injunction’s intent. The 9th Circuit upheld the contempt finding in December, while allowing Apple to re-argue the permissible commission rate.

Apple filed an emergency application to the Supreme Court seeking a stay pending further appeal. Justice Kagan’s refusal means no stay: the contempt order stands while litigation continues.

What’s at stake

For Apple, the numbers are significant. App Store commissions generated an estimated $22 billion in revenue in 2025 — roughly 17% of Apple Services revenue. If Apple is forced to restructure the external-link commission to something closer to 5-12% (the range Epic’s economists have argued is competitive), the Services segment takes a material hit.

For developers, this is the most consequential App Store ruling since the Epic suit was filed in 2020. The contempt framework means Apple faces real consequences — not just future-dated injunctions — for fee structures courts find in violation of existing orders. Epic’s Tim Sweeney has argued Apple spent roughly two years stalling compliance while collecting what courts have called supracompetitive fees on billions in transactions.

Practical outlook for developers

Apple is likely to appeal further — the 9th Circuit is still deliberating the permissible rate question — but the stay denial means enforcement proceedings are live. In practice, this creates pressure for Apple to propose a revised commission structure rather than continue contesting the contempt finding through its full appellate cycle.

Developers building apps with external payment options should track the 9th Circuit’s rate ruling closely. Whatever ceiling the court sets will determine whether the link-out model is genuinely viable as a lower-cost payment channel or remains economically indistinguishable from the App Store’s standard 30%.

The broader precedent matters too. The European Union’s Digital Markets Act has already forced Apple to allow alternative app stores in the EU. A U.S. federal court enforcement order targeting the commission rate — rather than just requiring the option to link out — would mark the most substantive structural change to the App Store’s revenue model in its 18-year history.