Ninth Circuit denies Apple rehearing request in Epic Games App Store dispute

• Both panel and full court rehearing requests were denied, closing another legal route for Apple.
• No judge called for a vote on the en banc petition.
• The ruling strengthens earlier findings that Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition Law.

The US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has unanimously denied Apple’s requests for a rehearing in its long-running legal dispute with Epic Games. 

The decision follows Apple’s appeal of a lower court order requiring the company to allow developers to direct users to alternative payment methods outside the App Store without imposing restrictive conditions. 

Apple had argued that the order expanded the scope of the original 2021 ruling and created uncertainty around what fees it could charge for transactions completed outside its ecosystem.

“The Ninth Circuit Court was clear: Apple must allow developers to point consumers to alternative payment options and only collect fees for the cost of administering link outs, not as a percentage of each purchase," said Epic Games in a post. 

Court rejects petitions

Apple filed two separate petitions, one requesting a rehearing before the original three-judge panel and another seeking a rehearing en banc, which would have involved the full Ninth Circuit.

“The full court has been advised of the petition for rehearing en banc, and no judge of the court has requested a vote on it," said the court. “The petition for panel rehearing and the petition for rehearing en banc are denied."

The dispute dates back to August 2020, when Epic Games sued Apple after the removal of Fortnite from the App Store for bypassing in-app purchase rules. 

While courts rejected most of Epic’s claims, they ruled that Apple violated California’s Unfair Competition Law by restricting developers from steering users to alternative payment options.

With both petitions denied, Apple now faces limited legal avenues, including the possibility of seeking another review from the US Supreme Court, which previously declined to hear the case.