Apple has filed a 12-page response to Epic Games' attempt to have its Supreme Court petition dismissed, arguing that Epic's own filing "confirms the need for review."
Epic filed a 35-page opposition on June 4, 2026, urging the Supreme Court to reject Apple's appeal. Apple's response takes aim at two central arguments Epic made in that filing.
On the question of anti-steering, Apple says Epic is mischaracterizing the scope of the injunction against it. According to Apple, the order only restricted specific anti-steering practices and did not address App Store commissions, making Epic's framing an attempt to rewrite the ruling rather than an accurate description of it.
The second dispute involves a 2025 Supreme Court precedent, "Trump v. CASA, Inc." Epic says Apple is wrongly claiming an exemption from it. Apple responds that the earlier ruling explicitly states CASA "has no bearing" on antitrust cases, which this is, making Epic's argument moot.
The filing is the latest exchange in a dispute dating back to 2020, when Epic deliberately triggered a conflict with Apple over App Store payment rules. Apple won the vast majority of the original case in 2021, but lost on anti-steering, with Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordering Apple to allow developers to link to external payment options. Apple complied, but charged a 27% commission on link-out transactions, leading few developers to adopt it.
In April 2025, Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in willful violation and barred it from charging any commission on external links. The judge also accused Apple VP of finance Alex Roman of giving testimony "replete with misdirection and outright lies" about when Apple decided on the 27% fee, and referred both Roman and Apple to federal prosecutors for a potential criminal contempt investigation. Apple dropped link fees and appealed.
In December 2025, the Ninth Circuit agreed Apple had violated the injunction but sent the case back to district court to determine a reasonable commission rate. Apple petitioned the Supreme Court in May, questioning whether the contempt finding was proper and whether the injunction should apply to all developers nationwide rather than just Epic.
An attempt to pause fee proceedings during that process was later reversed after Epic challenged it. Fortnite also returned to the App Store worldwide in May, with Epic CEO Tim Sweeney declaring the start of the "final battle" of the dispute.
The Supreme Court has indicated it could decide whether to accept Apple's appeal as early as June, though a final ruling remains many months away regardless.
Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
