Apple vs. Epic: Response to the Supreme Court Apfelpatient

This article may contain affiliate links. Learn more on our Partner Program page.

Make Apfelpatient a preferred source One click – and you'll see us more often on Google

In its long-running dispute with Epic Games, Apple is escalating its efforts: With a concise, twelve-page submission, the company is fighting back against Epic's attempt to nip its appeal to the US Supreme Court in the bud. Apple's core message – that Epic's own written submission demonstrates that the highest court must consider the case.

The legal battle between Apple and Epic Games has reached the highest court in the US. After the case was recently referred back to the lower court, Apple has now submitted its response to a counter-argument from Epic. The game developer filed a 35-page statement on June 4, 2026, urging the court not to even consider Apple's complaint. Apple countered with its own, significantly shorter submission, challenging two key arguments of its opponent.

Apple's response to Epic's written submission

In its twelve-page response, Apple reverses Epic's line of argument: precisely because Epic presents the case in this way in its statement, it confirms the need for a ruling from the highest court. The first point of contention concerns the so-called anti-steering rules – that is, the question of whether and how developers are allowed to indicate payment methods outside the App Store within their apps.

According to Apple, Epic is misrepresenting the scope of the court order. The order only prohibited certain anti-steering practices and did not address App Store commissions. Epic's account, therefore, amounts to rewriting the ruling rather than accurately representing it.

Dispute over a precedent-setting ruling

The second conflict revolves around a landmark Supreme Court ruling from 2025, "Trump v. CASA, Inc." Epic accuses Apple of unfairly exempting itself from its application. Apple counters that the very ruling explicitly states it has no bearing on antitrust cases—which is precisely what this case is. Therefore, Apple concludes, Epic's objection is unfounded.

The long road since 2020

The conflict dates back to 2020, when Epic deliberately provoked a breach of Apple's payment rules in the App Store. Apple won most of the original case in 2021, but lost on the issue of anti-steering: Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered the company to allow developers to link to external payment options. Apple complied, but charged a 27 percent commission on such outside-the-app transactions – resulting in very few developers using the service.

In April 2025, Judge Gonzalez Rogers ruled this practice a deliberate violation and prohibited Apple from charging any commission on external links. The judge also accused Apple's CFO, Alex Roman, of making misleading and untrue statements in court regarding when the 27 percent fee was internally decided upon, and referred both Roman and Apple to the federal prosecutor's office for consideration of possible contempt of court proceedings. Apple canceled the fee and appealed.

In December 2025, the competent appeals court confirmed the violation of the order, but referred the case back to the district court to determine an appropriate commission rate – a step that also affected the Timetable for the new commission negotiation The dispute was shaped by the events of May 2026. Apple ultimately appealed to the Supreme Court, focusing on two key questions: whether the contempt of court ruling was lawful and whether the injunction should apply nationwide to all developers, not just Epic. An attempt to suspend commission negotiations during the proceedings was overturned following an appeal by Epic. That same month, Fortnite returned to the App Store worldwide—except in Australia—with Epic CEO Tim Sweeney calling it the start of the "final battle" in the dispute.

A decision could be made as early as June

Whether the Supreme Court will accept Apple's appeal could be decided as early as June, according to observers. However, regardless, many months are likely to pass before an actual ruling is reached. This latest submission is therefore primarily another exchange of arguments in a case that touches upon the fundamental economic principles of the App Store – a case that, after more than five years, still hasn't reached a conclusion. (Image: Shutterstock / Kosoff)