This article may contain affiliate links. Learn more on our Partner Program page.
The date is set: On January 11, 2027, the dispute between Apple and Epic Games will land before the US Supreme Court. However, the case will not be about the amount of the commission, but about a more fundamental question.
The Supreme Court scheduled the trial for Monday, January 11, 2027, on November 2nd in the docket. This date had been open since the court accepted Apple's appeal in June.
The January session schedule lists Apple v. Epic as the second case of the day. This marks the start of the January session. It is the first oral argument before the Supreme Court in this legal dispute over the App Store.
Key Facts at a Glance
- The oral hearing will take place on Monday, January 11, 2027.
- Only the legal basis for the finding of contempt is being negotiated, not the future amount of the commission.
- Epic must submit its written statement by November 13th, and Apple's response will follow by December 14th.
- The commission proceedings are continuing in parallel before the district court in Oakland, currently in the document phase.
- The procedure concerns the US store, not the App Store in Germany, Austria and Switzerland.
The timetable until the hearing
There are 195 days between the acceptance on June 30 and the hearing. The date coincides with the target that both sides had stated in their joint request for a deadline in July: the first week of the January session.
| Date | Step |
|---|---|
| 14.09.2026 | Apple's written submission |
| 21.09.2026 | Statement by the US government, which does not support either side |
| 13.11.2026 | Deadline for Epic's written submission |
| 14.12.2026 | Apple's response is due. |
| 11.01.2027 | Oral hearing |
The hearings begin at 10 a.m. in Washington, D.C., which is 4 p.m. Central European Time. Apple v. Epic will begin after the first case, around 11 a.m. according to the SCOTUSblog calendar. This is expected to be around 5 p.m. in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
It's about the spirit of an order
The court limited the appeal to a single question: Can a party be prosecuted for contempt if it violates the "spirit" of an order whose wording does not actually regulate the conduct?
The background to this is the Oakland ruling from April 2025. Apple had allowed external purchase recommendations, but demanded a 27 percent commission and severely restricted their design. The court considered this a violation of Apple's privacy policy. The appeals court essentially upheld this finding in December 2025, but allowed a commission in principle.
The US government is only partially backing Apple. The 27 percent violation charge is to be dropped because the order did not mention fees. The requirement to allow only simple buttons is to remain in place. Four other design rules are to be sent back to the lower court.
The commission dispute continues in Oakland
Apple sought to suspend the proceedings in the district court pending a ruling from Washington, but failed: Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan rejected the emergency motion on August 13. The commission proceedings therefore continue in parallel.
The issue at hand is Apple's proposal of up to 15 percent on external purchases in the US. In October, the two sides primarily argued over documents explaining how Apple arrived at this figure.
Why the ruling does not directly affect the store in this country
The proceedings only affect the US store. In the EU, the Digital Markets Act and Apple's new terms and conditions have regulated links to external purchases since October. Switzerland is not subject to the DMA, but the US ruling does not apply there either.
I expect a verdict by the end of June or the beginning of July 2027, when the current session ends. Ultimately, the case will likely focus less on Apple's commission and more on the question of how far courts are allowed to interpret their own rulings.
I believe a split outcome, as proposed by the US government, is quite possible. Whether an Apple victory would also end the dispute in Oakland is debatable: Apple would then see no further basis for the compensation proceedings, while Epic considers them necessary regardless of the verdict.
Should a court be allowed to prosecute a company based on the "spirit" of an order, even if the specific conduct wasn't explicitly prohibited? Let us know in the comments where you would draw the line.
