Despite plans for review, the current order allows remand proceedings to proceed in district court in the meantime.

Apple will continue to take zero revenue from certain in-app purchases that link out to developers’ sites while the larger case proceeds.

The dispute centers on Apple’s App Store fees and injunctions requiring alternative payment methods for developers, with Epic arguing Apple’s 27% commission on outside payments violates the injunction and Apple contending the injunction should not apply to millions of developers beyond Epic.

Epic Games contends Apple has shown no irreparable harm and that delaying remand would prolong uncertainty for developers and consumers awaiting clarity on commission rates.

Epic argues that allowing further delay would sustain profits at the expense of developers and users, while Apple maintains the injunction should not extend to millions of developers beyond Epic Games.

The case returns to Judge Rogers to determine the lawful commission rate for external-link purchases, with potential criminal contempt proceedings previously referenced by the judge.

As a result, Apple cannot charge commissions on linked-out purchases until the District Court approves a new rate, preserving the lower court’s contempt-based status quo.

Regulators worldwide are watching how Apple’s commission rates for covered purchases may be set in large international markets, according to Apple’s filing to the Supreme Court.

Apple plans to petition the Supreme Court again or seek further review, continuing the high-stakes fight over App Store fees and pricing.

Judge Rogers extended the anti-steering injunction to bar Apple from collecting fees on third-party storefronts, and Apple has not charged these commissions during the contempt period.

Regulators and governments are increasing scrutiny of digital marketplaces, with potential reforms strengthening developer rights and competition in mobile ecosystems.

Epic faces no immediate harm from a pause, as Apple will refrain from charging commissions during the stay process, and Apple states it is not seeking to block the injunction itself.