Epic Games has asked the United States Supreme Court to keep in place a contempt finding against Apple, a dispute that turns on a single figure: the 27 percent cut Apple takes from web purchases made shortly after a customer follows a link out of an iOS app. The question is one that recurs across the history of platforms and the shops built upon them, namely how far a gatekeeper may tax the road a customer takes away from its own door. Here the justices will not weigh whether the fee is fair in itself, but whether a court order was honored in spirit as well as letter, a narrower question that
Epic Asks Supreme Court to Uphold Contempt Ruling Against Apple's 27% Web Purchase Fee
Developers "actually would lose money" by directing consumers to outside payments
Mark
Why is a fee dispute landing at the Supreme Court as a contempt question?
Mimi
Because the court isn't being asked to price the fee. It's being asked what counts as violating an order when the order never named commissions.
Luke
Worth stressing that this account leans on Epic's brief. The math, the 27% plus over 3% processing, is Epic's argument.
Mark
Is the 30% comparison solid, then?
Mimi
Epic says it exceeds the standard rate, and cites an Apple executive acknowledging linked-out purchases would cost developers more. That's a claim about what the executive said, as presented in the filing.
Luke
Right, and we haven't seen Apple's side of that characterization here. We only have its contempt argument, that the injunction didn't expressly ban commissions.
Mark
And the appeals court?
Mimi
It upheld contempt but called a ban on every fee too broad. Apple might eventually charge for costs genuinely necessary to support links, once the district court approves it.
Luke
What that fee would be is unknown. No figure exists yet.
Mark
So what happens January 11, 2027?
Mimi
Oral arguments. Not a decision.
The Pulse
- Epic says Apple's 27 percent commission on web purchases, stacked with processing fees above 3 percent, can cost developers more than Apple's standard 30 percent in-app cut.
- The fight traces back to Fortnite's 2020 removal from the App Store, and the wounds have not healed in the years of appeals that followed.
- Apple insists the original injunction never expressly banned commissions, while Epic warns that a loophole would let companies swap forbidden practices for new rules with identical effects.
- The Supreme Court will examine the legal standard for contempt rather than the reasonableness of 27 percent, with oral arguments set for January 11, 2027.
Epic Games has asked the United States Supreme Court to keep in place a contempt finding against Apple, a dispute that turns on a single figure: the 27 percent cut Apple takes from web purchases made shortly after a customer follows a link out of an iOS app. The question is one that recurs across the history of platforms and the shops built upon them, namely how far a gatekeeper may tax the road a customer takes away from its own door. Here the justices will not weigh whether the fee is fair in itself, but whether a court order was honored in spirit as well as letter, a narrower question that will nonetheless shape how developers reach their own customers.
Epic Games has filed a brief asking the U.S. Supreme Court to leave in place a contempt ruling against Apple. The filing centers on the 27 percent commission Apple charges on web purchases made within seven days after a user follows a link out of an iOS app. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney has called it a junk fee, and the company's argument is concrete: Apple typically takes up to 30 percent on its own payment system, but a developer who sends customers elsewhere would pay Apple's 27 percent plus more than 3 percent in processing costs, so the total can exceed the in-app rate. Epic says an Apple executive acknowledged as much, and argues the rate was engineered to discourage alternatives.
The commission arrived alongside strict rules on link design, dynamic URLs, approved wording, and a full-page warning before a user could leave an app. The dispute began in 2020, when Epic bypassed Apple's payments inside Fortnite and was removed from the App Store. Although Epic lost most of its antitrust claims, courts found Apple could not stop developers from telling customers about other ways to buy.
In April 2025, District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in willful violation of that injunction and barred commissions on off-app purchases, opening room for developers and helping Fortnite return to the U.S. App Store after nearly five years. An appeals court upheld the contempt finding but said a total ban on external-purchase fees went too far; Apple may eventually collect a limited fee covering genuinely necessary costs, once the district court approves one.
Apple argues it should not be held in contempt because the injunction never explicitly prohibited commissions. Epic counters that such a reading would let companies evade court orders with substitute restrictions. The justices will decide the legal standard for contempt, not whether 27 percent is reasonable, and oral arguments are set for January 11, 2027.
Epic Games has filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court asking the justices to leave in place a contempt ruling against Apple. The filing, reported by GamesBeat, centers on a single number: the 27% commission Apple charges on web purchases that happen within seven days after a user follows a link out of an iOS app.
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney has called the charge a "junk fee." The company's legal argument is more specific. Apple normally takes as much as 30% through its own in-app purchasing system. A developer who sends customers to a web payment provider would owe Apple 27% and would also pay that provider more than 3% in processing costs. Added together, Epic says, the total can exceed what Apple takes on its own system.
The filing puts it bluntly: developers "actually would lose money by directing consumers to external payment systems." Epic also cites an Apple executive who acknowledged that linked-out transactions would cost developers more than purchases processed by Apple at 30%. Epic's claim is that Apple "reverse engineered" the rate to discourage developers from offering alternatives.
The commission did not arrive alone. According to the source, it came with rules on the design and placement of external links, limits on dynamic URLs, approved wording, and a full-page warning displayed before a user could leave an app.
The case traces back to 2020, when Epic bypassed Apple's payment system inside Fortnite. Apple removed the game from the App Store, and Epic sued. Epic lost most of its antitrust claims, but courts found that Apple could not stop developers from telling customers about other ways to buy.
Apple responded by permitting certain external links while introducing the 27% commission and the design restrictions. In April 2025, District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in willful violation of the earlier injunction and barred it from collecting commissions on off-app purchases. The ruling gave U.S. developers considerably more room to promote and run their own web stores, and it helped clear the way for Fortnite to return to the U.S. App Store after an absence of nearly five years.
An appeals court upheld the contempt finding but said that banning every possible external-purchase fee went too far. Apple may eventually be allowed to collect a limited amount covering costs genuinely necessary to support external links. Until the district court approves an appropriate fee, though, it cannot charge a commission.
Apple's position is that it should not have been held in contempt because the original injunction never expressly prohibited commissions. Epic answers that this reading would let companies sidestep court orders by swapping a forbidden practice for new restrictions that produce the same result.
That is why the Supreme Court's role here is narrow. It is considering the legal standard for contempt, not directly deciding whether 27% is a reasonable fee. Oral arguments are scheduled for January 11, 2027.
Notable Quotes
As a result, developers actually would lose money by directing consumers to external payment systems.— Epic Games' Supreme Court filing
The 27% charge is a "junk fee."— Tim Sweeney, Epic CEO
Want the full story?
Read the original at 80 Level ↗