Apple filed documents on Monday announcing its intent to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court regarding the fees it charges for external payments on its App Store. This move marks a significant escalation in the years-long legal standoff between the tech giant and Epic Games, the developer behind Fortnite.
At the heart of the dispute is Apple’s 27% commission on transactions made outside the App Store payment system. In December 2025, the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court’s decision, ruling that this steep fee effectively nullifies the purpose of allowing external payments and stifles market competition.
The Battle Over Commission Compliance
Apple has consistently argued that the 27% fee is not merely a payment processing charge, but rather reflects the value of a range of services, including hosting, distribution, software tools, and access to its developer ecosystem. Epic Games has strongly pushed back, claiming the fee is a disguised attempt to prevent developers from benefiting from the use of alternative payment methods.
Epic Games spokesperson Natalie Munoz described Apple’s move as "yet another delay tactic designed to prevent the court from imposing substantive and permanent restrictions on its practice of charging 'junk fees' on third-party payments." She noted that while courts have repeatedly deemed such practices unlawful, Apple continues to use various maneuvers to undermine competition.
With no further options left in the Ninth Circuit, Apple is now taking the fight to the Supreme Court. Should the high court agree to hear the case, Apple intends to challenge the legal standards used to limit how it prices its services. The final verdict will have direct implications for the App Store’s business model, particularly as consumers increasingly turn to AI chatbots and intelligent agents to perform tasks.
While the court has granted Apple’s motion to stay the appellate court’s ruling, Epic Games has already filed an objection. Although Apple is pinning its hopes on the Supreme Court, it remains uncertain whether the case will be accepted, especially given that the court previously declined to hear a separate portion of the litigation.
