Apple and Epic Clash Over Supreme Court Appeal on App Store Rules
Apple is opposing Epic Games' bid to dismiss its Supreme Court appeal concerning App Store regulations. The dispute, ongoing since 2020, centers on "anti-steering" rules and alleged violations of court orders. Apple argues Epic misinterprets past rulings, while Epic contests Apple's claims, highlighting a 2025 precedent. This legal battle impacts global app market policies.
Key points
- Apple filed a response opposing Epic Games' motion to dismiss its Supreme Court petition regarding App Store rules.
- The core disputes involve Apple's interpretation of "anti-steering" injunctions and a 2025 Supreme Court precedent, "Trump v. CASA, Inc.".
- Epic Games argues Apple is mischaracterizing the scope of the injunction and wrongly claiming an exemption from the precedent.
- Apple contends the CASA ruling explicitly excludes antitrust cases like this one.
- The legal fight stems from a 2020 conflict over App Store payment rules, with Apple winning most of the original 2021 case but losing on anti-steering.
- A judge found Apple in willful violation of anti-steering orders in April 2025, barring it from charging commissions on link-out transactions.
Apple has formally responded to Epic Games' attempt to halt its Supreme Court appeal, arguing that Epic's own filing underscores the necessity for judicial review. This latest exchange in the protracted legal battle, which began in 2020 over App Store payment policies, focuses on conflicting interpretations of "anti-steering" rules and a significant 2025 Supreme Court precedent.
Epic Games urged the Supreme Court to reject Apple's appeal, but Apple's filing counters that Epic is misrepresenting the scope of an injunction related to anti-steering. Apple asserts the order only restricted specific practices and did not cover App Store commissions, viewing Epic's framing as an attempt to redefine the ruling. Furthermore, Apple argues that Epic is incorrectly claiming Apple is exempt from the 2025 "Trump v. CASA, Inc." ruling, stating that precedent explicitly has "no bearing" on antitrust matters.
Apple initially won the majority of the 2021 case, but was ordered to allow developers to link to external payment options. However, Apple's subsequent imposition of a 27% commission on these "link-out" transactions led to minimal developer adoption. In April 2025, a judge ruled Apple was in willful violation of this order, prohibiting such commissions.
Sources
The WireByte editorial team synthesises technology news from multiple primary sources, verifies the facts, and links every source. Articles are produced with AI assistance and reviewed under our editorial policy.