Keybanc analyst Brandon Nispel has downgraded Apple from Sector Weight to Underweight and announced a price target of $250. The rating cut reflects a revised outlook on the stock's performance relative to the sector.

The downgrade moves Apple to a lower recommendation tier at Keybanc. The new price target provides a specific valuation level for the shares going forward.

The long-running legal war between Epic Games and Apple is entering a new phase as the companies clash over whether Apple can delay a court process that could reshape how the iPhone maker collects fees from developers. Epic Games has formally opposed Apple’s request to pause lower-court proceedings that will determine what commission Apple can charge when users complete purchases outside the App Store. The dispute comes as the U.S. Supreme Court prepares to review a separate issue involving Apple’s civil contempt finding, though Epic argues that this review should not slow down the commission proceedings already underway.

At the center of the fight is Apple’s App Store business model, which has long relied on collecting commissions from digital purchases made inside apps. Epic argues Apple’s policies have allowed it to maintain excessive control over payments on iOS, while Apple says its fees support the security, infrastructure and services behind the App Store. The current dispute stems from a 2021 ruling by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who ordered Apple to allow developers to direct users to alternative payment methods outside Apple’s in-app purchasing system.

Apple complied by allowing external links but attached restrictions and imposed a 27% commission on purchases made through those links. Judge Rogers later ruled that Apple’s approach violated the injunction and found the company in civil contempt. Apple has challenged that finding, arguing the original order did not explicitly prevent it from charging a commission on outside purchases. The Supreme Court agreed to hear Apple’s appeal of the contempt issue but declined to take up Apple’s broader challenge over the scope of the injunction.

Apple is now asking the lower court to pause proceedings while the Supreme Court considers the contempt question, arguing the outcome could affect the legal foundation for determining an appropriate commission structure. Epic, however, argues Apple is using the Supreme Court review as a way to delay a decision on the fee structure. In its filing, Epic said the Supreme Court is reviewing only a narrow contempt issue and that the lower court will still need to address what commission, if any, Apple can charge regardless of the outcome.

Epic warned that waiting for the Supreme Court’s decision could push the process into 2027, slowing efforts to create more competition around Apple’s payment system. The company argued that moving forward now would be "most efficient" because the commission question remains unresolved. Under the current schedule, Apple is expected to file its reply supporting its request for a pause on July 13. If the court rejects Apple’s motion, the company will be required to submit its proposed external-link commission structure within 24 hours of the ruling.

The outcome could have broader implications beyond Epic and Apple. A court decision limiting Apple’s ability to collect fees on outside payments could pressure the company’s App Store economics and strengthen arguments from regulators and developers who have accused Apple of operating a closed digital marketplace.