Epic Games has fired back at Apple's latest legal move. As per the company, Apple's motion is a calculated delay that stalls the case.

The case is now heading back toward the Supreme Court. The Fortnite maker has filed another motion opposing Apple's request to pause key rulings.

"We also filed our opposition to the motion to stay, which states: 'Apple’s effort to stay this Court’s mandate is about nothing other than delay,'" Epic Games Newsroom posted on their X handle

"While Apple’s commission for linked-out transactions remains subject to judicial review, most developers are reacting to the uncertainty by refraining from steering—so that most transactions continue to flow through Apple’s IAP," they added.

The commission Apple gets on linked-out purchases is still under review. However, Epic claims most transactions still run through Apple’s ecosystem. This means Apple continues to benefit from what Epic describes as “supracompetitive profits.” And will continue benefiting the longer the case stretches

Meanwhile, Apple is preparing to challenge how courts have handled the issue. Its appeal focuses on whether it can be penalized for violating the “spirit” of a ruling rather than its exact wording, and whether nationwide restrictions on its fee structure are justified.

As the Ninth Circuit has granted Apple's stay request, the final resolution timeline has once again been pushed further out.

Epic Games vs. Apple: Where it all started

The clash between Apple and Epic traces back to 2020. This was the time when Fortnite became the center of a major industry shake-up.

Epic introduced an in-app payment option that bypassed Apple’s system. As an answer, Apple promptly removed Fortnite from the App Store. This move triggered one of the biggest legal showdowns in the entertainment market.

In 2021, a US court ruled that Apple was not a monopoly. But it still required it to allow developers to guide users toward external payment options.

At first, it seemed like a win for Epic, but not until Apple's new implementations came under fire. The company introduced a huge 27% commission on external transactions, only slightly lower than its standard 30% cut.

Epic once again argued that the move defeated the purpose of the court's decision. Again dispute intensified, which led to further court interventions and findings that Apple’s approach limited genuine competition.

However, the same core issue remains unresolved, even after so many years. Apple still wants flexibility in how it charges for its ecosystem. On the other hand, Epic continues to push for open competition.

Read more at Gaming Community by Max Level!

Written by

Nilendu Brahma

Edited by

Sagnik Bagchi