Apple App Store and Fortnite Dispute Persists Despite Court Ruling

Apple is preparing to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review its ongoing legal dispute with Epic Games concerning App Store commissions. On April 6, 2026, a court granted Apple’s motion to stay the mandate regarding how the company charges for external payment systems, a decision Epic Games immediately challenged.

The current legal friction focuses on the fees Apple imposes when developers apply third-party payment methods to bypass the standard App Store system. While Apple reduced its commission to 27% for these external transactions—a slight decrease from the standard 30% fee—the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled that this fee was not compliant with previous court orders and found Apple in contempt. Epic Games and other developers argued that the 27% commission offered no real savings, as external payment processing incurs its own separate fees.

This latest development follows the return of Fortnite to the U.S. App Store in May 2025. The game had been absent from the platform for five years after Apple removed it in 2020. Fortnite’s return occurred after a judge ordered Apple to explain delays in the app’s approval process or reach a resolution with Epic Games over the title’s status.

The broader litigation began in August 2020 when Epic Games challenged Apple’s restrictions on in-app purchasing methods. In September 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that while Apple did not operate as a monopoly, its anti-steering policies—which prevented developers from informing users about alternative payment options—were anticompetitive. This decision was largely affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal in April 2023.

The dispute over commissions persists as other platform holders adjust their policies. Google recently settled a similar case with Epic Games and reduced its Play Store commissions to 20%.

Epic Games has filed an opposition to the motion to stay, characterizing Apple’s legal strategy as an effort to delay the court’s mandate. The company has asked the Ninth Circuit Court to reconsider the decision granting the stay.