Apple today filed a petition with the Supreme Court of the United States, asking the justices to review lower court rulings that found the company in contempt of an antitrust injunction and imposed a broad remedy affecting thousands of developers. The move represents the latest chapter in the long-running legal battle between Apple and Epic Games over App Store policies.

Background of the dispute

The conflict began in August 2020 when Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite, implemented a server-side update that bypassed Apple's In-App Purchase (IAP) system. This violated App Store rules, prompting Apple to remove Fortnite from its marketplace. Epic subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging antitrust violations.

In September 2021, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled largely in Apple's favor on antitrust claims but issued an injunction prohibiting Apple from blocking developers from informing users about alternative payment methods outside the IAP system. The injunction required Apple to allow "buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms."

Apple complied by introducing a new rule allowing external links but imposing a 12% to 27% commission on purchases made through those links. Epic challenged this compliance, arguing that the commission effectively negated the injunction's purpose. In 2023, the District Court found Apple in contempt, ruling that the company had not made a good-faith effort to comply.

Apple's arguments to the Supreme Court

Apple's petition raises two primary questions. First, whether the company should have been held in contempt for charging commissions on purchases made outside the App Store. Apple contends that the original injunction did not explicitly address commissions—it only prohibited blocking developers from linking to external payment options. The Ninth Circuit upheld the contempt finding by relying on the "spirit" of the injunction, a standard Apple argues is insufficient under established precedent. Apple cites the Supreme Court's own rulings requiring that a court order "clearly and unambiguously" prohibit specific conduct before contempt can be imposed.

Second, Apple challenges the scope of the injunction. The order applies to all developers worldwide with apps on the U.S. App Store storefront, not just Epic. Apple argues this contradicts the Supreme Court's 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, which limited federal courts' ability to issue sweeping national injunctions that extend beyond the parties in a case. Apple notes that Epic did not win on its federal antitrust claims, yet the Ninth Circuit created an "antitrust exception" to CASA, which Apple says is improper.

Apple further argues that the contempt finding has broader consequences. "A civil contempt ruling is a major development in any litigation and can negatively impact future orders," the company wrote in its petition.

Epic Games responds

In a statement provided to AppleInsider, Epic Games called Apple's petition a "Hail Mary to delay a conclusion to this case." The statement said, "The Supreme Court has already rejected Apple’s attempt to overturn the injunction in this case. This challenge to the contempt order is one last Hail Mary to delay a conclusion to this case and avoid opening up the gates to payment competition for the benefit of consumers."

Epic emphasized that Apple's own internal documents showed the company "intentionally designed its sham compliance with the District Court’s order to prevent competition." The two companies have agreed to an expedited schedule, meaning the Supreme Court could decide whether to take the case by late June or early July 2026.

Previous Supreme Court involvement

This is not the first time the Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on the Apple-Epic litigation. In January 2024, the justices declined to hear appeals from both sides, allowing the lower court's injunction to stand. Earlier this month, the Court denied Apple's request to pause the case while it prepared the broader petition. That emergency request required a showing of irreparable harm, which Apple failed to demonstrate. The current petition, however, asks the Court to review the merits of the underlying legal issues.

The legal battle has broader implications for the app economy. If the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case, it could clarify the standard for contempt in antitrust cases and the permissible scope of injunctions in digital marketplaces. The outcome may also influence ongoing legislative efforts around app store regulations in the United States and abroad.

Next steps

Epic and Apple are expected to file additional briefs in the coming weeks. The District Court has set a schedule to determine the commission structure Apple can charge on external purchases, pending the Supreme Court's decision. Should the Court decline review, the case will proceed in the District Court under the existing contempt ruling. If the Court grants review, the proceedings will be stayed until a ruling is issued.

Legal experts are divided on whether the Supreme Court will take the case. Some argue that the contempt standard and the scope of injunctions are questions of national importance, as courts increasingly use nationwide orders to regulate technology platforms. Others note that the Court has already declined to hear related issues from this case, suggesting it may do so again.

Regardless of the outcome, the Apple-Epic dispute continues to shape how apps are distributed and monetized on mobile platforms. Developers worldwide are watching closely, as any changes to Apple's commission structure could affect their business models.

Source: 9to5Mac News