WASHINGTON, May 6 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court rejected on Wednesday Apple's request to temporarily block a judicial order that found the iPhone maker in violation of sweeping court-mandated changes to its lucrative App Store as part of an antitrust lawsuit by "Fortnite" maker Epic Games.
Justice Elena Kagan, on behalf of the court, declined to pause a ruling by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that deemed Apple in contempt in the Epic lawsuit contesting App Store fees.
The Supreme Court's action means Apple will return to U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland, California, to quarrel over what commission the company can lawfully charge for certain app-related transactions. Apple's bid at the Supreme Court had been aimed at staving off returning to the trial court while it pursued its legal challenge before the justices.
Epic Games Chief Executive Tim Sweeney said in a statement that "the Supreme Court has considered Apple's delaying motion and found it unworthy."
Apple did not immediately provide comment.
Apple and Epic have clashed for years over the rules governing Apple's App Store. The contempt ruling and the scope of Apple's court-ordered obligations are the latest issues in the dispute to reach the Supreme Court. Apple has said the 9th Circuit decision would affect how millions of app purchases are made.
Epic Games won the contempt order last year as part of litigation it brought in 2020 seeking to loosen Apple's control over transactions in applications that use the company's iOS operating system and its restrictions on how apps are distributed to consumers.
Apple mostly defeated Epic's lawsuit, but was required in the judge's 2021 injunction to let developers include links in their apps directing users to non-Apple payment methods.
Apple allowed the links but adopted new restrictions, including a 27% commission on developers for purchases made on payment systems outside the App Store within seven days of clicking a link. Apple charges developers a 30% commission for purchases within the App Store.
Epic argued that the new 27% commission flouted the earlier injunction. In 2025, the judge found Apple in civil contempt for violating the injunction.
The 9th Circuit in December upheld the judge's contempt finding but allowed Apple to make new arguments about what commission it should be allowed to charge for digital goods bought in apps distributed through the App Store but paid for using third-party payment systems.
In the district court, Sweeney said, Apple must now disclose the costs involved in reviewing apps that use competing payment systems so developers can be billed accordingly.
Apple has denied violating the judge's order and has argued that the injunctionshould not be applied to millions of developers beyond Epic Games.
"Regulators around the world are watching this case to determine what commission rate Apple may charge on covered purchases in huge markets outside the United States," Apple told the Supreme Court in a filing.
Epic has argued that Apple should not be allowed to sidestep the judge's original injunction, saying this would "give Apple more time to continue unfairly profiting at the expense of consumers and app developers."
(Reporting by Mike Scarcella; Editing by David Bario and Will Dunham)
