Apple’s fight over commissions for linked-out App Store purchases continues in federal court

While a federal judge's civil contempt finding against Apple heads to the Supreme Court, a lower court will decide what the tech giant's commission rate will be.OAKLAND, Calif. (CN) — A federal judge will continue to assess Apple’s commission for linked-out app purchases after she denied the tech giant’s motion Tuesday to stop proceedings while the U.S. Supreme Court reviews the landmark case.U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers was emphatic at a motion to stay hearing, saying the Ninth Circuit’s decision, upholding her injunction and finding Apple in civil contempt, was another piece of the drawn-out Epic Games v. Apple case that is now back in her courtroom on remand. She denied Apple its motion.The Supreme Court agreed to review the contempt finding on June 30, while Rogers must now hash out with the parties’ attorneys what a final commission figure will be for Apple to impose on linked-out purchases to external storefronts that begin in its App Store.“The court is to determine an appropriate commission, that is a factual issue,” the Barack Obama appointee said. “There are evidentiary issues to be addressed; none of that will be discussed at the Supreme Court.”Epic Games attorney Lauren Moskowitz agreed with Rogers’ determination, saying Rogers has the discretion to continue the remand.Epic Games, the maker of the popular online video game Fortnite, originally brought antitrust claims against Apple in 2020, claiming the tech giant engaged in anticompetitive practices by forcing companies to use its proprietary tools to develop and distribute apps on its App Store. Not only do all apps go through the App Store, but Apple also requires app developers to use its in-app purchase system for transactions. Epic Games called Apple’s system a “walled garden,” locking iPhone users into a closed platform where they can only download apps from Apple.In September 2021, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a split decision, ruling in favor of Apple on nine of 10 counts. These included Epic’s charges related to Apple’s 30% revenue cut and its prohibition of third-party marketplaces on iOS.In line with her findings, Rogers issued a permanent injunction blocking Apple’s previous ban on external links for purchases.Apple appealed the ruling, but a three-judge appeals panel upheld Rogers’ findings in April 2023; the Supreme Court also denied Apple’s appeal in January 2024.With the case formally ended, Apple began allowing developers to direct app users to external storefronts following the ruling; it demanded a 27% commission on earnings made on in-app goods purchased through those storefronts.That commission did not sit well with Rogers. In April 2025, the federal judge ordered Apple to halt its fees on external purchases, finding Apple “willfully” failed to comply with her previous injunction and referring the case to the federal attorney’s office for possible criminal contempt proceedings.In June 2025, the Ninth Circuit denied Apple’s request for an emergency stay of the no-commissions order; the Supreme Court did the same in May 2026.However, the high court took an interest in the contempt charges brought by Rogers, allowing Apple to challenge them in the court’s 2026 term beginning in October.On Tuesday, Apple attorney James Rouhandeh said the lower court had two potential paths to choose from, one of which was to modify the injunction.Rogers was wary of Apple’s tactics and “prior conduct” to continue the fight, saying it had 24 hours to appeal the denial of her stay once her order is published.“I am not persuaded by your arguments,” she said. “We are going to move on. We are coming up on five years, and Apple has acted in many ways to delay, delay, delay.”Rogers noted U.S. District Judge James Donato is going through a similar process with Epic Games v. Google.“It can’t be about the conservation of judicial resources because I need to understand the factual issues,” she said. Rogers said that previous evidence, including testimony from Apple’s own executives, showed nothing should be charged for commissions on linked-out purchases.“That was recommended to Mr. Cook,” said Rogers, referencing Apple’s CEO Tim Cook. “He refused to accept that; now we have to figure out what that is, based on the actual records.”Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads