Court Rejects Apple's Emergency Motion to Pause App Store Rule Changes - MacRumorsOpen MenuShow RoundupsShow Forums menuVisit ForumsOpen Sidebar
Skip to Content

Court Rejects Apple's Emergency Motion to Pause App Store Rule Changes

Apple will not be able to walk back the anti-steering App Store changes it was ordered to implement in May while the legal process plays out, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit said today. That means Epic Games, Spotify, Patreon, and others will be able to continue to direct customers to web purchase options that are available outside of the App Store, and Apple won't be able to collect fees on those web purchases.

iOS App Store General Feature Black
Shortly after being forced to update its U.S. ‌App Store‌ rules to support external purchase links, Apple filed an emergency motion with the appeals court. Apple wanted to be able to hold off on implementing the new rules until it was able to mount a full appeal, but the appeals court denied the motion.

To be granted a stay, Apple needed to prove that its appeal is likely to succeed and that it would be irreparably injured without a stay, while the court also needed to consider whether the stay would injure other parties and where public interest lies. The court said that after "reviewing the relevant factors" it has not been persuaded that a stay is appropriate.

Apple argued that the original order was "extraordinary" and forced it to "give away free access" to Apple products and services, including intellectual property. Apple said that it should be able to collect commission on external purchase links and control the way those links look, both of which are currently prohibited. Apple claimed that keeping the ‌App Store‌ rules as is will cost it "hundreds of millions to billions" of dollars annually.

The ‌App Store‌ changes that Apple implemented in the U.S. are a result of the ongoing Apple vs. ‌Epic Games‌ legal battle that started in 2020. The judge overseeing the case originally ordered Apple to tweak the ‌App Store‌ rules to allow developers to direct customers to web purchase options instead of using in-app purchases. Apple complied after a multi-year appeals process, but levied 12 to 27 percent fees on developers who opted to do so and implemented strict rules around link styling.

‌Epic Games‌ protested Apple's implementation, and the judge sided with Epic. In a scathing ruling, Apple was ordered to immediately change its U.S. ‌App Store‌ rules. As of now, Apple is not allowed to charge any fee on purchases that consumers make outside of an app, nor is it allowed to restrict the language or design that developers use for buttons or links to web purchase options.

Popular Stories

Liquid Glass App Store Feature

Apple Pulled Cal AI for Deceptive Billing Design, Not External Payments

Tuesday April 21, 2026 12:54 pm PDT by
Apple recently cracked down on Cal AI, an app owned by MyFitnessPal that tried to skirt Apple's in-app purchase rules. Apple told TechCrunch that it briefly pulled the calorie-counting app last week for violating purchasing guidelines and using a deceptive billing design. When the app was pulled last week, there was speculation that it was removed for implementing web-based payments,...
app store monthly sub commitment

Apple Introduces App Store Monthly Subscriptions With 12-Month Commitment

Monday April 27, 2026 12:52 pm PDT by
Apple today announced the launch of a new subscription option for App Store developers: monthly subscriptions with a 12-month commitment. The new option allows developers to offer subscribers discounted pricing typically associated with an annual subscription but paid on a monthly basis to keep payments more affordable. This new payment option allows you to offer subscribers more affordable...
app store blue banner epic 1

Epic Games Wins Reversal of Stay in App Store Fee Legal Battle

Wednesday April 29, 2026 5:05 am PDT by
Apple will not be able to delay a district court battle over fee calculations while it waits to hear whether the U.S. Supreme Court will weigh in on the latest developments in its long-running dispute with Epic Games. On Tuesday, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier decision letting Apple keep its current zero-fee link-out commission structure in place while it appeals to...

Top Rated Comments

sw1tcher Avatar
12 months ago

Apple argued that the original order was "extraordinary" and forced it to "give away free access" to Apple products and services, including intellectual property. Apple said that it should be able to collect commission on external purchase links and control the way those links look, both of which are currently prohibited. Apple claimed that keeping the App Store rules as is will cost it "hundreds of millions to billions" of dollars annually.
What a load of 💩

Let's take Spotify as an example. Before Apple allowed external purchase links, you could only subscribe to Spotify through their website. Apple collected $0.00 and Apple was perfectly okay with this arrangement. No complaints from Apple about having to give away their products and services either.

Now that there are external purchase links on the Spotify app, Apple says not only will this cost them millions of dollars annually but it's also forcing Apple to give away their products and services too?

I didn't know external purchase links were capable of inflicting this much harm.
Score: 53 Votes (Like | Disagree)
AppliedMicro Avatar
12 months ago

Apple argued that the original order was "extraordinary" and forced it to "give away free access" to Apple products and services, including intellectual property
Prohibitions or on communicating with customers are not intellectual property.
They are junk fees.

Also, providing access to the Apple App Store is not free. Epic, Netflix, Amazon and Spotify - they all pay their yearly membership. If that - and the hardware sales - are not enough, Apple is free to price their App Store in a fair, non-discriminatory and not-anticompetitive way.


Imagine still advocating for typing in your credit card numbers into unknown vendors
I've made countless credit card transactions online just fine.
With vendors I trust. Why would I use an app from someone I don't trust anyway?
Score: 46 Votes (Like | Disagree)
User 6502 Avatar
12 months ago
Of course they did. Apple is rotten and they are defending the indefensible
Score: 28 Votes (Like | Disagree)
sw1tcher Avatar
12 months ago

yea, now Epic and the likes get to load apps into the store and use Apple's infrastructure for $99/year - that is plain wrong.
Amazon, Starbucks, Walmart, McDonald's, Uber, Netflix, et al all put their apps on Apple's App Store and use Apple's infrastructure for $99/yr. No complaints from Apple.
Score: 25 Votes (Like | Disagree)
AppliedMicro Avatar
12 months ago

Epic is a company that does nothing but addict kids to a game to get the credit card of the parents
...and Apple want's to keep that "addicting" business to themselves. So what?

Besides, V-Bucks do not require a credit card - they can be purchases as prepaid gift cards.
Score: 25 Votes (Like | Disagree)
AppliedMicro Avatar
12 months ago

Let's take Spotify as an example. Before Apple allowed external purchase links, you could only subscribe to Spotify through their website. Apple collected $0.00 and Apple was perfectly okay with this. No complaints about Apple having to give away their products and services either.
Also, let's take Uber as example.

Apple provides them access to the App Store access and (afaik) their push notification service. And they're perfectly ok with charging only the yearly developer membership. And with allowing Uber to ask for credit card details in-app, conducting in-app transactions without Apple's involvement or commission.
Score: 24 Votes (Like | Disagree)