This article may contain affiliate links. Learn more on our Partner Program page.
The district court in Northern California has denied Apple's request to suspend the App Store fee proceedings pending a Supreme Court ruling. This marks the third consecutive instance in which Apple has been denied a break – and the company must now disclose its financial figures.
Since April 2025, Apple has not collected a single cent in the US when developers link to their own payment pages from within their apps. This is precisely what the remaining point of the dispute with Epic Games revolves around: What commission can Apple charge for these links in the future? Apple had attempted to postpone this calculation until the Supreme Court ruled on the penalty for non-compliance, rejecting Epic's objections to the procedural halt. The district court did not grant this request.
Key Facts at a Glance
- The US District Court for Northern California has rejected Apple's request to stay the proceedings.
- Apple must submit to the court shortly what fees it intends to charge for link-outs and alternative payment methods.
- Epic Games will then be given time for a legal assessment, after which the court will decide on the appropriateness of the measure.
- This is already the third court to deny Apple a break – after the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court.
- In the EU, comparable fees have long been regulated and range from twelve to twenty percent; in the USA, they are currently zero.
What the court decided
Apple had petitioned the relevant district court to suspend the determination of the fees until the Supreme Court hearing. The reasoning: Should the highest court overturn the coercive fine, the entire calculation would be invalid.
The court rejected the application. Apple must now submit a proposal outlining the fees that should be charged for referrals to external payment options. Epic Games will then have the opportunity to submit a legal statement before a hearing on the appropriateness of the fees takes place.
The specific deadlines – 24 hours for Apple, 60 days for Epic – come from a public post by Epic CEO Tim Sweeney and not from a court notice. Sweeney is a party to the proceedings; his timelines align with the proceedings so far, but he is not a neutral source.
The third rejection in four months
What's remarkable about the decision is less its content than its precedence. Apple has attempted to halt the proceedings at three different points since the spring and has failed every time.
| Date | Instance | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 29.04.2026 | Court of Appeal | Suspension lifted |
| 06.05.2026 | Supreme Court | Urgent application rejected |
| 30.06.2026 | Supreme Court | Appeal accepted for further proceedings |
| 02.07.2026 | District Court | Apple requests a suspension |
| 11.08.2026 | District Court | Application rejected |
The acceptance of the appeal at the end of June was Apple's only partial success in this chain – and ironically, it failed to bring the break the company had hoped for.
Two clocks running in opposite directions
The Supreme Court's session begins in early October. If Apple submits its fee proposal now and Epic uses the full deadline to respond, the response will fall precisely within the period when the highest court already has the case before it.
This means it's possible that the district court could set a fee whose legal basis would soon cease to exist. Apple has argued based on this risk – but so far, the courts haven't accepted it as a reason to continue withholding clarity from developers.
In Europe, the bill has long been paid
For developers in German-speaking countries, the US dispute is not a distant matter, but rather a benchmark. What is currently being negotiated in California has already been implemented in the EU by the Digital Markets Act – at a price that is currently unheard of in the United States.
Since January 1, 2026, a uniform business model has been in effect in the EU. According to Apple's developer documentation, anyone who links to their own payment methods from within an app pays an Initial Acquisition Fee of two percent for new customers in the first six months, a Store Services Fee of five or thirteen percent depending on the chosen tier, and a Core Technology Commission of five percent.
| Market | Fee on link-outs | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| USA | currently none | Court ruling since April 2025 |
| EU/EEA | 12 to 20 percent | DMA Terms and Conditions since January 1, 2026 |
| Switzerland | Link-outs not provided | worldwide standard conditions |
Switzerland is neither a member of the EU nor the EEA and therefore does not fall under the DMA conditions. Swiss developers operate under global standard rules, which do not even provide for this approach. This is a detail that is regularly overlooked in discussions about European exceptions.
Why the outcome matters beyond California
Apple itself pointed out to the Supreme Court that regulators worldwide are watching the outcome. This is not just lip service: In the UK, the competition authority is examining similar regulations, which Apple is opposing on the grounds of overly broad regulation. In Brazil, the company has already opened iOS to alternative app stores and payment methods.
If the California court sets a low commission, it will become the benchmark in every other jurisdiction against which Apple's European 12-to-20 percent rate will be measured. Conversely, if it is high, the company has a strong argument.
For you as a user, nothing will change in the short term, but the price may change in the long term: The cheaper the alternative to the App Store, the more likely providers are to pass on the savings in the form of lower subscription prices on their own websites. Where this is already possible, it's worth checking the provider's website before subscribing in the App Store – and if you want to know what subscriptions you already have, you can find the overview in your Apple account's purchase history.
The dispute reaches the numerical level
After six years of litigation, the issue is no longer about principles, but about percentage points. The courts have answered in the affirmative the question of whether Apple is even allowed to charge for its platform. The only remaining question is how much – and for the first time, this answer is subject to a concrete deadline. (Image: Apple)
- watchOS 27: Nine new colors for the modular watch face
- Last Seen: Apple TV shows trailer for the German-directed thriller
- iOS 27: Higher iCloud+ plan brings more AI features
