Apple Asks Supreme Court to Throw Out App Store Contempt Ruling
Apple filed an opening merits brief with the Supreme Court to overturn a contempt order that forced a change to App Store rules. The company argues the order should be vacated so the App Store can revert to its pre‑2025 framework.
Background
The dispute began in 2020 when Epic Games sued Apple over the App Store’s anti‑steering policies. A federal judge later ruled that Apple had not breached antitrust law, but ordered it to relax those policies.
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an injunction requiring Apple to let developers link to alternative purchase options inside apps. The injunction was concise, containing only 75 words and no reference to fee structures.
In response, Apple introduced a link‑out system but attached a 12% to 27% fee on transactions that originated from those links. Adoption by developers remained limited.
Epic Games returned to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, claiming that the fee violated the spirit of the injunction. The judge concurred, finding Apple in contempt.
Legal Timeline
In April 2025, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers barred Apple from collecting any fees on purchases made through external links in the U.S. App Store. This contempt ruling triggered a cascade of appeals.
Apple promptly altered its App Store rules to comply with the new directive, yet simultaneously filed an appeal. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the contempt finding, reinforcing the lower court’s stance.
Undeterred, Apple escalated the matter to the Supreme Court, submitting a brief that repeats its core argument: a party cannot be held in civil contempt for breaching the “spirit” of an injunction when the injunction’s language does not expressly prohibit the conduct.
The brief cites precedent dating back to 1885, asserting that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals departed from established case law by penalizing Apple for actions not explicitly forbidden.
Technical and Financial Implications
The original injunction required only that Apple stop blocking links to alternative purchasing methods; it never stipulated a permissible fee range. By imposing 12%‑27% charges, Apple arguably exceeded the injunction’s literal terms.
The contempt order’s ban on any fee collection effectively eliminated a revenue stream that Apple historically derived from link‑out transactions. This shift could reshape the economics of the App Store ecosystem for developers and consumers alike.
When the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the contempt ruling, it also noted that the district court’s total prohibition on commissions was overly broad. Consequently, the case was remanded to the district court to calculate a “reasonable” fee structure.
Apple attempted to delay the remand proceedings, but the courts rejected those efforts, insisting that the fee‑calculation phase move forward without further postponement.
Supreme Court Appeal
The Supreme Court is slated to hear oral arguments in 2027. Epic Games will file its response brief in November, after which Apple may submit a reply brief.
The central question before the justices is whether a civil contempt finding can rest on the “spirit” of an injunction absent explicit textual violation. Apple contends that without a clear, unambiguous breach, contempt cannot be sustained.
By invoking historical cases from 1885 onward, Apple seeks to demonstrate that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals misapplied precedent, thereby undermining the legitimacy of the contempt judgment.
Future Outlook
If the Supreme Court vacates the contempt order, the App Store would revert to its pre‑2025 policies, potentially reinstating the ability to charge fees on link‑out purchases.
Should the Court uphold the lower courts’ decisions, Apple will return to the district court to establish a “reasonable” fee ceiling, reshaping the financial relationship between the platform and its developers.
The outcome will have far‑reaching implications for the broader tech industry, influencing how injunctions are interpreted in future antitrust and platform‑governance disputes.
---
This article, “Apple Asks Supreme Court to Throw Out App Store Contempt Ruling,” originally appeared on MacRumors.com.