Apple has taken the next formal step in its fight to overturn the contempt ruling that changed how the App Store handles outside payment links. The company filed its opening merits brief with the Supreme Court, asking the justices to reverse or vacate the order entirely.
A win would return App Store rules to how they worked before 2025, before Apple was forced to let developers link out to payment options without charging a commission.
The Case Traces Back to Apple’s Original Epic Games Win
This fight is a continuation of the Epic Games v. Apple case that started back in 2020. Apple largely won that case since it wasn’t found to have violated antitrust law.
But Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers still ordered Apple to relax its anti-steering rules and let developers link to alternative purchase options inside their apps. Apple complied on paper, but charged a fee of 12 to 27 percent on any purchase made through those links. Almost no developers bothered to use the system.
Epic Pushed Back and Apple Was Found in Contempt
Epic went back to Judge Gonzalez Rogers and argued that Apple’s fee structure violated her injunction in spirit, even if not by the letter. She agreed. In April 2025, she held Apple in contempt of court and barred it from collecting any fees at all on purchases made through outside links in the U.S. App Store.
Apple changed its rules to comply but appealed the ruling. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the contempt finding, which is what pushed the case to the Supreme Court.
Here’s how the case has moved through the courts so far:
Apple’s Argument Rests on the Wording of the Original Injunction
Apple’s core argument is narrow and technical. The brief asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a company can be held in civil contempt for violating the “spirit” of an injunction when the injunction never actually addressed that conduct in the first place.
The original injunction from Judge Gonzalez Rogers never mentioned fees on outside links at all. Both the contempt ruling and the Ninth Circuit agreed Apple violated the spirit of that order anyway once it started charging high fees on link-outs.
Apple is pushing back hard on that reasoning. Citing legal precedent going back to 1885, the company argues the Ninth Circuit broke from established practice by allowing a contempt finding based on spirit rather than explicit wording.
Apple’s brief repeatedly stresses that the original injunction was just 75 words long, arguing there was no clear and unambiguous violation of its actual text.
Apple Still Faces a Separate Fight Over Fee Amounts
The Supreme Court isn’t expected to hear the case until 2027. Epic Games will file its response brief in November, after which Apple gets a chance to file a reply.
While that plays out, Apple has a second front to deal with. The Ninth Circuit ruled that the total ban on commissions went too far and sent the matter back to district court to set a reasonable fee instead. Apple tried to delay those proceedings but failed, so the fee calculations are moving forward regardless of what happens at the Supreme Court.
The original injunction that started all of this was just 75 words long.
via MacRumors
