The Tool Desk
Outbyte Driver Updater FREEScan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →Outbyte PC Repair FREEClear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsFree Scan →Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
Apple’s dispute over external-payment links is now before the U.S. Supreme Court, but the Court has not yet decided the merits. On June 30, 2026, the Court agreed to hear a limited part of Apple’s challenge to a Ninth Circuit ruling that largely upheld contempt sanctions related to Apple’s restrictions on developer links to outside purchasing options.
The case is Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, No. 25-1311. It concerns the enforcement of a 2021 injunction—not a new ruling requiring sideloading, alternative app stores, or unrestricted payment systems on iPhones.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
Apple iPhone 14, 128GB, Midnight - Unlocked (Renewed) | $300.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Apple iPhone 16, 128GB, Pink - Unlocked (Renewed) | $583.36 | Buy on Amazon |
| 3 |
|
Apple iPhone 15, 128GB, Black - Unlocked (Renewed) | $410.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 4 |
|
Apple iPhone 13, 128GB, Midnight - Unlocked (Renewed) | $262.00 | Buy on Amazon |
| 5 |
|
Apple iPhone 16e, 128GB, Black - Unlocked (Renewed) | $389.00 | Buy on Amazon |
The short version
- A 2021 injunction required Apple to let developers direct users to external purchasing options and communicate about them.
- Apple responded with a U.S. App Store system that included a commission of up to 27%, warning screens, presentation restrictions, reporting requirements, and a seven-day attribution period.
- In April 2025, a district court found Apple in civil contempt, concluding that the restrictions materially undermined the injunction.
- In December 2025, the Ninth Circuit upheld the contempt finding and most sanctions, but rejected a blanket ban on Apple collecting any commission. It left open the possibility of a charge tied to Apple’s directly attributable costs.
- The Supreme Court granted review only on Question 1. As of September 22, 2026, it has not issued a merits decision.
Apple’s earlier request to pause the lower-court ruling was denied by Justice Kagan on May 6, 2026. That was a stay decision, not a final ruling on the merits. Supreme Court stay docket
What Apple is appealing
The current Supreme Court case is the latest stage of a dispute that has produced several separate appeals. Apple is challenging the Ninth Circuit’s treatment of the later contempt proceedings, including the meaning and enforceability of the 2021 injunction, the use of civil contempt, the injunction’s scope, and the remedies imposed after Apple’s link and commission rules were found inconsistent with the order.
#1 Best Overall
- This phone is unlocked and compatible with any carrier of choice on GSM and CDMA networks (e.g. AT&T, T-Mobile, Sprint, Verizon, US Cellular, Cricket, Metro, Tracfone, Mint Mobile, etc.).
- Please check with your carrier to verify compatibility.
- The device does not come with headphones or a SIM card. It does include a generic (Mfi certified) charging cable.
- Tested for battery health and guaranteed to have a minimum battery capacity of 80%.
The Supreme Court did not accept every question Apple presented. Its June 30 grant is limited to Question 1 in Apple’s petition. In substance, that question concerns whether the lower courts could use the injunction’s purpose or practical effect to find Apple in contempt for conduct that Apple says was not expressly prohibited by the order. The official docket and petition control the precise scope of review. Supreme Court docket · Question-presented report
That limited grant does not mean the Supreme Court will decide every question about Apple’s App Store fees, payment architecture, or worldwide developer policies.
What the 2021 injunction required
After Epic Games’ antitrust trial, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers rejected Epic’s principal claims that Apple was an illegal monopolist, but ruled against Apple under California’s Unfair Competition Law over its anti-steering rules.
The resulting injunction required Apple not to prevent developers from:
- including buttons, external links, or other calls to action;
- directing users to purchasing mechanisms outside the App Store; or
- communicating with users about alternative purchasing options.
The order was primarily about steering and communication. It was not a general order requiring Apple to permit alternative app stores, sideloading, or every possible form of independent payment processing on iPhones.
Rank #2
- 6.1" Super Retina XDR OLED, HDR10, Dolby Vision, 1000nits (typ), 2000nits (HBM), 2556x1179px at 460ppi, 3561mAh Battery
- 128GB 8GB RAM, Apple A18 (3nm), Hexa-core (2x4.04 GHz + 4x2.20 GHz), Apple GPU 5-core, 16‑core Neural Engine
- Rear camera: 48MP, f/1.6, wide + 12MP, f/2.2, ultrawide, Front Camera: 12MP, f/1.9, wide, iOS 18, upgradable to iOS 18.5
- 4G LTE: 1/2/3/4/5/7/8/12/13/14/17/18/19/20/25/26/28/29/30/32/34/38/39/40/41/42/48/53/66/71, 5G: n1/2/3/5/7/8/12/14/20/25/26/28/29/30/38/40/41/48/53/66/70/71/75/76/77/78/79 - Dual eSIM
- Unlocked for freedom to choose your carrier. Compatible with both GSM & CDMA networks. The phone is unlocked to work with all GSM Carriers & CDMA Carriers Including AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Sprint., Etc.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed the core injunction on April 24, 2023. The Supreme Court declined to hear the parties’ earlier petitions on January 16, 2024, leaving that injunction in force. Apple’s earlier Supreme Court docket · Epic’s earlier Supreme Court docket
How Apple complied—and why Epic objected
Apple created a U.S. App Store system under which qualifying apps could include links to external payment options. But the system came with conditions, including:
Quick wins for a faster PC:
Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problemsFix Now →Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteDriver Scan →- a commission of up to 27% on qualifying external transactions;
- rules controlling how external links could be presented;
- warning screens and disclosures;
- reporting and auditing requirements; and
- a seven-day attribution period for transactions following a link-out.
That distinction matters: allowing a link in theory is not necessarily the same as allowing a link in a commercially usable way. Epic argued that the commission and design rules made external payment unattractive or effectively prohibitive. Apple argued that it should be able to recover costs associated with operating the App Store, security, review, platform services, and link-outs.
The dispute is not simply about whether Apple can continue requiring its own in-app payment system. It is about whether Apple’s conditions on external steering unlawfully prevent or materially discourage developers from using outside payment options.
Apple’s petition and appendix · Epic’s opposition
Rank #3
- 6.1inch Super Retina XDR display. Aluminum with color-infused glass back. Ring/Silent switch
- Dynamic Island. A magical way to interact with iPhone. A16 Bionic chip with 5-core GPU
- Advanced dual-camera system. 48MP Main | Ultra Wide. Super-high-resolution photos (24MP and 48MP). Next-generation portraits with Focus and Depth Control. 4X optical zoom range
- Emergency SOS via satellite. Crash Detection. Roadside Assistance via satellite
- Up to 26 hours video playback. USB C, Supports USB 2. Face ID
Why the district court held Apple in contempt
On April 30, 2025, the district court found that Apple had willfully violated the injunction and imposed sanctions. The court focused on the practical effect of Apple’s commission and restrictions governing the presentation of external-payment links.
In other words, the contempt finding concerned Apple’s conduct after the injunction—not merely the continued existence of Apple’s own payment system. The central question was whether Apple’s conditions undermined the court’s prohibition on preventing developers from steering users to outside purchasing options.
District court contempt docket entry
What the Ninth Circuit decided
On December 11, 2025, the Ninth Circuit reached a mixed result:
- It affirmed the contempt finding against Apple.
- It affirmed most of the district court’s sanctions.
- It declined to vacate the underlying injunction.
- It held that the district court’s categorical ban on Apple collecting any commission was too broad.
The court left open the possibility that Apple could recover costs directly attributable to external-payment links. That is not the same as approving a particular fee percentage. A percentage-based charge designed to discourage external payments could still present a different legal problem from a documented cost-recovery charge.
The Ninth Circuit’s ruling therefore was not a complete victory for either side: Epic prevailed on contempt and most sanctions, while Apple won a partial limitation of the commission-related remedy.
Crashes, No Sound, or Screen Glitches?
Random freezes, missing sound and display glitches usually trace back to one bad driver. Find and replace yours safely.Free scan · under a minutePC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Rank #4
- This pre-owned product is not Apple certified, but has been professionally inspected, tested and cleaned by Amazon-qualified suppliers.
- There will be no visible cosmetic imperfections when held at an arm’s length.
- This product is eligible for a replacement or refund within 90 days of receipt if you are not satisfied.
- Product may come in generic Box.
Read the Ninth Circuit decision
What the Supreme Court will decide
The Supreme Court’s review is limited to Question 1 in Apple’s petition. The Court has agreed to examine that specified legal question; it has not announced that Apple may restore its 27% commission, and it has not ruled that the external-link requirement is invalid.
The Court could ultimately affirm the contempt ruling, reverse it, narrow the interpretation of the injunction, or send the matter back to the lower courts for further proceedings. The eventual opinion may resolve the contempt question without immediately establishing a final universal fee percentage.
Apple’s opening merits brief and joint appendix are currently due September 14, 2026, and Epic’s response is currently due November 13, 2026, according to the Supreme Court docket. The schedule can change. Check the current docket
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.What remains at stake for developers
For developers, the practical stakes include:
- whether external-payment links can be presented without Apple-controlled design barriers;
- whether Apple can charge a commission on transactions initiated through those links;
- whether any permitted charge must be limited to documented direct costs;
- how much revenue developers retain from subscriptions, game currency, digital goods, and other purchases; and
- what disclosure, reporting, audit, security, or entitlement requirements Apple may continue to impose.
An external link can send a user to a developer’s website, a third-party payment processor, a subscription platform, or another digital storefront. The litigation concerns Apple’s restrictions and compensation connected to that flow; it does not automatically create a right to build an entirely independent payment system inside an iOS app.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
The eventual effect may also depend on details such as whether the app sells digital or physical goods, whether the transaction is an initial purchase or subscription renewal, whether it occurs in a browser or embedded web view, and which U.S. storefront or App Store entitlement applies. The courts have not definitively resolved every implementation question.
Best Value
- 6.1" Super Retina XDR OLED, HDR10, 800 nits (HBM), 1200 nits (peak), 2532x1170px at 460ppi, 4005mAh Battery
- 8GB RAM, Apple A18 6-core CPU (2 performance + 4 efficiency cores), Apple GPU 4-core, 16‑core Neural Engine
- Rear camera: 48MP, f/1.6, wide, Front Camera: 12MP, f/1.9, wide, iOS 18.3.1, upgradable to iOS 18.5
- Connectivity: Global 4G LTE, Sub-6 GHz 5G, LTE, Wi-Fi 6, Bluetooth 5.3, NFC, USB-C, Wireless Charging (7.5W). (does not have mmWave 5G or MagSafe or physical SIM card) - Dual eSIM Only
- Unlocked for freedom to choose your carrier. Compatible with both GSM & CDMA networks. The phone is unlocked to work with all GSM Carriers & CDMA Carriers Including AT&T, T-Mobile, Verizon, Straight Talk., Etc.
What is at stake for Apple
Apple’s App Store economics could be affected if it cannot impose a percentage-based charge on purchases made after an external link. Apple says it should be able to recover costs associated with operating the platform and supporting link-outs. Epic says the 27% commission and related restrictions functioned less like cost recovery and more like a way to preserve Apple’s control over digital payments.
The distinction between those positions is important. The Ninth Circuit did not announce a new universal fee rate. It rejected the district court’s blanket prohibition and indicated that a charge tied directly to attributable costs might be possible.
Timeline of the Apple–Epic payment-link dispute
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| September 2021 | District court issues the injunction requiring Apple to permit developer steering to external purchasing options. |
| April 24, 2023 | Ninth Circuit affirms the core injunction. |
| January 16, 2024 | Supreme Court denies the earlier Apple and Epic petitions. |
| April 30, 2025 | District court finds Apple in civil contempt and imposes sanctions. |
| December 11, 2025 | Ninth Circuit affirms contempt and most sanctions but narrows the commission-related remedy. |
| March 30, 2026 | Ninth Circuit denies rehearing. |
| May 6, 2026 | Justice Kagan denies Apple’s application to stay the lower-court ruling. |
| June 30, 2026 | Supreme Court grants review limited to Question 1. |
| September 14, 2026 | Current deadline for Apple’s opening merits brief and joint appendix. |
| November 13, 2026 | Current deadline for Epic’s response brief. |
What this case does not decide
- It is not a sideloading case. The injunction does not generally require Apple to allow apps from outside the App Store.
- It is not an alternative-app-store order. External-payment links and alternative app distribution are separate issues.
- It is not a worldwide rule. This is a U.S. court dispute. Apple’s rules in other jurisdictions may be affected by separate laws and proceedings.
- It is not a ruling that Apple is an illegal monopolist. The district court rejected Epic’s principal federal antitrust theories, while ruling against Apple under California’s Unfair Competition Law on anti-steering restrictions.
- It does not cover every transaction category. Physical goods, digital goods, subscriptions, renewals, and different payment flows may raise different implementation questions.
What happens next
The Supreme Court’s next major step is merits briefing. After the briefing and oral argument, the Court could leave the contempt ruling intact, reverse or narrow it, or remand parts of the dispute to the lower courts.
For developers and subscription businesses, the key point is that Apple’s external-link obligation has not disappeared merely because the Supreme Court granted review. The 27% commission is also not definitively resolved as a universal rule: the Ninth Circuit rejected a total commission ban while leaving room for a direct-cost-based charge. The final practical rules will depend on the Supreme Court’s eventual decision and any further proceedings or Apple policy changes that follow.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
