Apple pushes for a pause in the Epic dispute

In the ongoing dispute between Apple and Epic Games, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers has agreed to postpone key deadlines. Apple wants to suspend the entire proceedings before the district court until the Supreme Court has ruled on the central issue. For users and developers in the EU, the actual point of contention is already a reality – the Digital Markets Act there has already addressed it.

The legal battle between Apple and Epic Games has been dragging on since 2020 and is now entering another round of litigation. After Apple recently attempted to halt the proceedings with an emergency motion to the Supreme Court, the situation has shifted: The highest US court has accepted the case. Consequently, Apple and Epic jointly requested a stay of proceedings – a request that the presiding district judge has now granted.

What the new deadline regulation provides

According to the approved schedule, Apple has until July 6 to file its motion to stay the proceedings. Epic must respond by July 10, and Apple must then submit a reply by July 13. Only then will the court decide whether the proceedings are indeed stayed.

Much depends on this decision. If the court rejects the stay, Apple must submit its proposal for the commission rate for purchases made through external links within 24 hours. If, however, the stay is granted, the proceedings before the district court will be suspended until the Supreme Court has ruled on Apple's appeal.

From the Contempt ruling to the Supreme Court

At its core, the dispute revolves around a single question: Is Apple allowed to charge a commission on purchases made by users through external links in iOS apps? A 2021 order required Apple to allow such links to alternative payment methods. Apple permitted the links but demanded a 27 percent commission – whereupon the court, in 2025, found a deliberate violation of the "spirit" of the order and prohibited Apple from charging any fee on such purchases. Since then, external payment links in the US have operated without Apple's cut; the appeals court remanded the case to determine an appropriate fee level.

This is precisely where the latest development comes in: at the end of June, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Apple's appeal against the Contempt ruling – but only on this one issue. The justices explicitly dismissed Apple's second objection, namely that the order was wrongly extended to all developers instead of just Epic. The hearing will not begin until October at the earliest, with the start of the new judicial term.

This has long been regulated in the EU – unlike in Switzerland

For readers in German-speaking countries, it's worth looking beyond the US legal proceedings: The issue being debated in California has already been decided in the EU. The Digital Markets Act already compels Apple to allow external paywalls and alternative distribution channels – and Apple has therefore fundamentally revised its fee structure in the European App Store. Developers in Germany and Austria are thus already operating under rules that the US legal proceedings are only now painstakingly balancing.

A Supreme Court ruling would not directly change this, because the European regulations stem from the DMA, not from US law. However, the case sets a globally significant precedent – regulatory authorities in the EU, as well as in Brazil, India, and the UK, are closely monitoring it. Switzerland occupies a special position: As a non-EU country, it is not subject to the DMA, so Apple's regular App Store terms and conditions continue to apply there.

Why the dispute continues

For Apple, every delay is a partial victory. As long as the commission rate isn't fixed and the Supreme Court hasn't ruled, the App Store's business model remains untouched – and external links in the US will continue to operate without Apple's involvement for the time being. The coming days will initially reveal whether the district proceedings are suspended or whether Apple will have to submit a concrete fee proposal now. However, the fundamental question of how much control a platform can retain over payment methods will only be answered by the highest US court – and that won't happen until the next trial period at the earliest. (Image: Shutterstock / Garun .Prdt)