Epic Games has asked the Supreme Court to keep the Apple contempt ruling in place, in a brief filed on November 13. Epic’s main argument is that Apple’s 27% commission on purchases made through outside links cost developers more than the 30% in-app rate once payment fees were added.
Epic is responding to Apple, which argued in its opening brief in September that a company can only be held in contempt for conduct an injunction clearly bars. The justices will hear oral arguments on January 11, 2027, and Epic asks them to affirm, or to send the case back to the lower courts if they decide to set a new contempt standard.
Epic calls the 27% fee a ban
The 2021 injunction barred Apple from prohibiting developers from adding buttons, links or other calls to action that point users to other ways to pay. Apple responded by charging 27% on any purchase a user made within seven days of tapping such a link, the first time it took a cut of purchases on the open web. Epic argues in its Supreme Court brief that Apple picked that rate knowing developers pay more than 3% to process payments, so a linked-out sale would always cost them more than an in-app one.
An Apple executive admitted in court that every linked-out transaction would cost developers more than an in-app purchase at 30%, and Apple could not name a single developer that linked out and paid the 27% commission. The 12% rate Apple charges small developers on linked-out sales fails the same way, since those developers pay 15% on in-app purchases.
The Solicitor General’s brief backed Apple on the commission, saying a 27% fee did not violate the injunction even if a 300% fee could. Epic says the trial record shows both rates had the same effect, because no developer would pay either one. Apple has also argued that the seven-day window brought its real rate closer to 18%, a figure the district court rejected.
Five design rules buried the links
Apple paired the fee with five design rules meant to make linked-out purchases hard to find and use. The district court found that together the rules amounted to a deliberate ban on steering in practice.
- Developers could use only a plain “button” with no visible shape and a background matching the app page.
- Apple banned dynamic URLs, so users had to enter their details again on the developer’s website.
- Developers had to pick from five Apple templates for any message about paying elsewhere.
- Links could not appear in an app’s store or purchase flow, and could show only once, on one page of the app.
- Users saw a full-page warning before leaving the app, and Tim Cook, then Apple’s CEO, encouraged even more alarming wording.
The Solicitor General agreed with Epic that the plain button rule broke the injunction, because the order protects both links and buttons. The government asked the Court to send the other four rules back to the lower courts.
Bad faith backs the Apple contempt ruling
The Ninth Circuit kept the district court’s findings on Apple’s conduct during the case, and Apple does not challenge them as clearly wrong. Apple claimed privilege over about 57,000 documents, then lost or withdrew most of those claims after months of delay. The court also found that a consultant’s report backing the 27% rate was a sham made for the litigation.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found that Apple’s Vice President of Finance lied under oath about when Apple decided on the new commission, and she referred the matter to the United States Attorney. Epic says a company that knew it was breaking an order and tried to hide it cannot claim the order left room for doubt.
In Epic’s view, Apple’s proposed rule would limit contempt to conduct an injunction names outright and leave courts chasing every new workaround in an endless game of whack-a-mole. If the justices tighten the standard anyway, Epic wants the district court to keep its power to rewrite the injunction going forward.
The Ninth Circuit upheld the contempt finding in December 2025 but threw out the district court’s ban on any commission for linked-out purchases. The district court is now deciding what fee Apple may charge, after the judge refused to pause that case while the Supreme Court weighs the appeal.
