US Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan issued an administrative stay on Wednesday, August 12, temporarily freezing the proceedings in the long-running antitrust lawsuit between Apple (AAPL.US) and Epic Games, the developer of Fortnite, in the California District Court. The move aims to give the Supreme Court more time to consider whether to grant Apple's request for a longer-term pause of the lower court's proceedings pending appeal. This temporary stay lasts only one day, freezing the process until 5 PM Washington time on Thursday, August 13. Apple is now temporarily spared from having to submit its App Store fee structure to the California District Court by the original deadline of 12 PM on Wednesday.

The multi-year antitrust dispute dates back to a lawsuit filed by Epic Games in 2020. Epic alleged that Apple's App Store monopoly violated federal antitrust law. The platform generates billions of dollars annually by charging developers a commission on digital sales. US District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California initially ruled that the App Store did not violate federal antitrust law, but did violate California state law. Based on this, she issued an injunction in 2021 ordering Apple to allow developers to guide consumers to cheaper online payment options. The ruling was subsequently upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and confirmed by the US Supreme Court.

In response, Apple allowed developers to direct users to the web for transactions, but imposed a new 27% commission on revenue generated from such transactions. Epic then accused Apple of using this new fee to circumvent the 2021 injunction. After a series of hearings, Judge Gonzalez Rogers found Apple to have violated her previous ruling and ordered the company to stop collecting commissions on purchases made outside its software marketplace. She also referred the case to federal prosecutors to investigate whether Apple was in contempt of court. The Ninth Circuit upheld the contempt ruling against Apple, but instructed the judge to consider "appropriate" compensation for Apple's use of its intellectual property—though not at the 27% level. The appeals court ordered Judge Gonzalez Rogers to hold further hearings to determine a suitable rate.

Apple sought Supreme Court review after the federal appeals court upheld the contempt finding. In June, the Supreme Court agreed to review the contempt ruling against Apple made by Judge Gonzalez Rogers. The case is expected to be argued in December, though the court has not yet set a specific date. Apple filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court on Wednesday, arguing that proceedings in the district court should be paused while the Supreme Court hears the case, as the justices' final ruling could render the subsequent hearings moot. Apple contends that if the justices find the original contempt ruling flawed, then any further hearings on its commission rates would be unnecessary. Notably, Judge Gonzalez Rogers on Tuesday denied a similar pause request from Apple. In her ruling, she stated that the Supreme Court's decision to hear Apple's appeal "does not materially affect the factual issues that must be resolved to ensure compliance with the injunction."