Login
Apple asks U.S. Supreme Court to vacate App Store contempt finding, arguing it never violated the order’s text
Apple has filed its opening merits brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to reverse or vacate a civil contempt ruling that stripped the company of commissions on purchases made through external payment links in U.S. App Store apps.
The brief, filed September 14, 2026, in Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc. (No. 25-1311), marks the start of the argument phase in a case the Court agreed to hear on June 30. The justices limited review to a single question: whether a party can be held in civil contempt for violating the “spirit” of an injunction when the order is silent on the conduct later deemed a violation.
How the fight reached the high court
Epic Games sued Apple in 2020 after Fortnite was removed from the App Store for offering an in-app payment system that bypassed Apple’s commission. U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers largely sided with Apple on federal antitrust claims but found that Apple’s anti-steering rules violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. In 2021 she issued a short permanent injunction — Apple notes it was only about 75 words — requiring the company to let developers include links and other calls to action that send users to alternative purchase options.
Apple allowed those links but charged commissions of 12% to 27% on resulting sales. Few developers used the system. Epic returned to court, arguing the fees made the injunction meaningless. In April 2025, Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in civil contempt and barred it from collecting any commission on U.S. link-out purchases. The Ninth Circuit upheld the contempt finding in December 2025 but said a total ban on fees went too far and sent the case back for a more tailored rate. Apple then petitioned the Supreme Court.
Apple’s core argument
Apple’s brief rests on a long line of Supreme Court contempt cases, including Taggart v. Lorenzen (2019). The company says civil contempt requires “clear notice” that the specific conduct is forbidden. Silence is not enough. The 2021 injunction never mentioned commissions, Apple argues, and even Epic once acknowledged the order did not explicitly prohibit fees on off-store transactions.
“When it comes to contempt proceedings, an order’s terms govern,” the brief states. Courts may later modify an injunction to address new circumstances, Apple says, but they cannot use contempt to punish conduct the original order never clearly banned. Apple contends the Ninth Circuit is an outlier in allowing contempt based on an injunction’s “spirit.”
If the Supreme Court agrees, the contempt order would fall and Apple could seek to restore pre-2025 App Store rules, or at least negotiate fees without the stigma of being a contemnor. If the finding stands, the district court in Oakland must still set a “reasonable” commission for external purchases. Those fee proceedings have continued even as the Supreme Court case moves forward; earlier stay requests, including one denied by Justice Elena Kagan, failed to freeze them.
What comes next
Epic’s response brief is due November 13, 2026. Apple’s reply is due December 14. Oral argument is not expected before early 2027. Amicus briefs supporting Apple are due later this month.
Epic CEO Tim Sweeney dismissed Apple’s framing after the brief dropped, saying the company is fighting for developers’ right to offer cheaper payment options and that lower courts “have rightly found Apple’s fees to be illegal and anticompetitive.”
The case will not decide whether Apple monopolized the iPhone app market. It will decide how strictly courts must hew to the text of an injunction before they can hold a company in contempt — a question with implications well beyond the App Store. For now, U.S. developers can still point users to external checkout with no Apple commission attached, while both sides wait for the Court to say whether that zero-fee regime was ever lawfully imposed.
MacDailyNews Take: The U.S. Supreme Court should vacate this contempt finding against Apple.
It’s about time the highest court in the land takes a serious look at this judicial overreach.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers and the Ninth Circuit have turned a narrow injunction into a never-ending micromanagement session of Apple’s App Store. Apple bent over backward to comply — allowing external payment links while protecting users and its ecosystem — only to get slapped with contempt for daring to charge a reasonable 27% commission on purchases that still leverage Apple’s platform, billing systems, and intellectual property. Epic’s Tim Sweeney, the perpetual sore loser who can’t compete fairly, continues his crusade to freeload off Apple’s hard work while crying “monopoly.”
This case has always been about one thing: Epic wants to undermine the very model that makes the iPhone secure, private, and reliable — all so they can rake in more profits without contributing fairly.
Here’s hoping the Supreme Court reins in this nonsense, limits the scope of overbroad injunctions, and affirms Apple’s right to run its own store on its own devices. The App Store isn’t a public utility, it’s Apple’s intellectual property. – MacDailyNews, June 30, 2026
Please help support MacDailyNews — and enjoy subscriber-only articles, comments, chat, and more — by subscribing to our Substack: macdailynews.substack.com. Thank you!
Support MacDailyNews at no extra cost to you by using this link to shop at Amazon.
The post Apple asks U.S. Supreme Court to vacate App Store contempt finding, arguing it never violated the order’s text appeared first on MacDailyNews.
