US Supreme Court refuses to pause App Store order against Apple in Epic case

Justice Elena Kagan turned down Apple’s emergency request on Wednesday, leaving a civil contempt order in place in the company’s long-running App Store dispute with Epic Games.

Reuters reported that the US Supreme Court rejected Apple’s request to temporarily block a judicial order finding the iPhone maker in violation of court-mandated changes to its App Store. CNBC framed the same result around the contempt order: the court declined to pause an order holding Apple in contempt in the Epic Games lawsuit.

The dispute began with Epic Games’ challenge to Apple’s control over purchases in the iOS App Store. The supplied case background says Epic objected to Apple’s restrictions on other in-app purchasing methods and to the revenue cut Apple takes from App Store purchases.

SCOTUSblog gives the clearest account of the mechanism. A federal judge had ruled that Apple could not block developers from encouraging customers to buy games and other products outside Apple’s App Store. The judge later found Apple in contempt, saying the company made that outside path harder and imposed a large commission on purchases made through third-party systems after users clicked a link in the App Store.

Apple asked the Supreme Court to step in while it pursued further review. SCOTUSblog quoted Apple arguing that a stay was needed before it was forced to litigate its commission rate under what it called an erroneous and prejudicial contempt label, in proceedings Apple said could reshape the global app market.

Epic urged the justices not to intervene. SCOTUSblog reported Epic arguing that Apple’s “willful contempt” had delayed the restoration of competition. That disagreement is now central: whether Apple’s App Store changes actually opened a competitive path for developers, or preserved control through new fees and friction.

The source framing differs by outlet. Reuters and CNBC emphasize the immediate Supreme Court outcome. SCOTUSblog explains the emergency posture: Kagan handled the request from the 9th Circuit and denied Apple’s application in a one-sentence notice. The case background adds the wider antitrust frame: Apple was not found to be a monopoly on most counts, but its anti-steering conduct was found anticompetitive.

For app users, the ruling affects whether developers can point customers toward outside payment options. For developers, it keeps the fight focused on commissions, links and how much control Apple can retain inside the App Store even when payments move elsewhere. For other platforms, the case shows how court orders can turn interface rules and payment design into competition policy.