Ninth Circuit Denies Apple’s Rehearing Requests in Epic Games Case
In a significant legal development, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has unanimously denied Apple’s petitions for a rehearing in its ongoing dispute with Epic Games. This decision reinforces previous rulings that found Apple in violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law by restricting developers from directing users to alternative payment methods.
Background of the Legal Battle
The conflict between Apple and Epic Games began in August 2020 when Epic introduced a direct payment system within its popular game, Fortnite, circumventing Apple’s App Store policies. This move led to Fortnite’s removal from the App Store and prompted Epic to file a lawsuit against Apple, alleging anticompetitive practices.
In 2021, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by preventing developers from informing users about alternative payment options. Although Epic’s other claims were dismissed, this particular ruling was a notable victory for the gaming company.
Apple’s Response and Subsequent Appeals
Following the 2021 ruling, Apple implemented measures that were perceived as attempts to circumvent the court’s injunction. These included imposing a 27% commission on purchases made outside the App Store and introducing design elements that discouraged users from utilizing alternative payment methods. In April 2025, Judge Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in contempt for these actions and issued a more stringent injunction, prohibiting Apple from charging any commission on external purchases and from interfering with developers’ communications about alternative payment options.
Apple appealed this decision to the Ninth Circuit, arguing that the new injunction was overly broad and punitive. In June 2025, the Ninth Circuit rejected Apple’s request to pause the enforcement of the injunction, emphasizing the necessity for Apple to comply with the original court order.
Denial of Rehearing Petitions
In its latest attempt to challenge the rulings, Apple filed two petitions with the Ninth Circuit: one for a rehearing before the original three-judge panel and another for an en banc rehearing involving the full court. Apple contended that the rulings created ambiguity regarding its ability to charge commissions on external purchases and sought clarification.
On March 30, 2026, the Ninth Circuit unanimously denied both petitions. The panel found no merit in Apple’s arguments and upheld the previous decisions. The denial of the en banc rehearing indicates that no judge found sufficient reason to reconsider the case.
Implications for Apple and the App Store
This ruling has significant implications for Apple’s App Store policies and its revenue model. The court’s decision mandates that Apple must allow developers to inform users about alternative payment methods without imposing additional fees or restrictions. This could lead to increased competition within the app marketplace and potentially reduce the commissions Apple collects from in-app purchases.
Furthermore, the court’s findings highlight concerns about Apple’s compliance with judicial orders. The contempt ruling and subsequent sanctions underscore the judiciary’s commitment to enforcing its decisions and ensuring that companies adhere to legal standards.
Potential Next Steps for Apple
With the denial of its rehearing petitions, Apple’s options for further legal recourse are limited. The company could attempt to escalate the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, the Supreme Court has previously declined to hear appeals from both Apple and Epic in this matter, suggesting that it may be reluctant to intervene.
Alternatively, Apple may choose to comply fully with the court’s injunctions and adjust its App Store policies accordingly. This would involve allowing developers greater freedom to direct users to alternative payment methods and refraining from imposing commissions on transactions conducted outside the App Store.
Broader Impact on the Tech Industry
The outcome of this case could have far-reaching effects on the tech industry, particularly concerning app store operations and developer relations. Other tech giants with similar app marketplace models may face increased scrutiny and potential legal challenges regarding their practices.
Moreover, this case has sparked a broader conversation about the balance of power between platform owners and developers. It raises questions about fair competition, revenue sharing, and the rights of developers to communicate directly with their users.
Conclusion
The Ninth Circuit’s unanimous denial of Apple’s rehearing requests marks a pivotal moment in the ongoing legal battle between Apple and Epic Games. The decision reinforces the judiciary’s stance on promoting fair competition and ensuring that platform owners do not engage in anticompetitive practices. As Apple contemplates its next steps, the tech industry will be closely watching how this case influences app store policies and developer relations moving forward.
