Apple has lost a court battle to delay changes to the App Store while asking the US Supreme Court to review its long-running dispute with Epic Games over developer fees.
On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier ruling that had allowed Apple to maintain its App Store commission structure while it appealed to the Supreme Court. The setback means that Apple must now return to a lower court to determine what fees it can charge developers who direct customers to foreign payment fees.
Apple won a break earlier this month arguing that it should not have to change its financial structure twice if the Supreme Court rules in its favor. In response, Epic Games immediately filed two motions: one saying it had not been given enough time to prepare a response to Apple’s stay request, and the other asking the court to reject the original request.
A three-judge panel granted Epic’s motion for reconsideration. The judges said that Apple had not shown that the Supreme Court might take up the case, and pointed out that the high court had already chosen not to listen to Apple’s challenges once back in 2024. They also rejected Apple’s claim that forcing a lower court trial would cause actual damages.
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney shared the news in a post on X, adding that “Apple’s delay tactics are over!”
Apple’s delay tactics are over! Now Epic v Apple returns to Judge Gonzales Rogers for a hearing on what fees Apple is charged to recoup the costs of updating apps using competing payment methods. — Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic) April 29, 2026
The case now goes back to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in California, who will decide what commission Apple can collect on purchases made through external links, if any. Apple could still appeal to the Supreme Court while those proceedings continue.
The dispute dates back to the first trial of Epic Games, which Apple won overwhelmingly. However, the exception was a 2021 ruling from Judge Gonzalez Rogers ordering Apple to relax its “anti-targeting” rules and allow developers to point users to external payment options.
Apple complied with this decision, but lowered its costs a bit, which led to few developers bothering to add links. Epic went back to court, and the judge found Apple in willful violation of the preliminary injunction. As a result, it prevented Apple from collecting any commission from external links.
Apple appealed and waived the connection fees while the case progressed, but the company argued that the decision was unconstitutional and that it should receive compensation for its technology. Then in December 2025, the court of appeals issued a split decision: Apple had violated the order, but the company should still be able to charge something reasonable. That brought back the question of how that money should look in the district court.
Apple is now hoping that the Supreme Court will go ahead and completely overturn the district court’s decision.