Epic formally asks SCOTUS to uphold contempt ruling against Apple - 9to5Mac
A dispute over payment links
Apple and Epic have been in a legal fight since 2020, when Epic sued after Apple removed Fortnite from the App Store. Epic had remotely enabled an alternative payment system that bypassed Apple’s In-App Purchase system.
The court largely sided with Apple but barred it from preventing developers from directing users to payment methods outside the App Store. Apple allowed those links, while adding a 27% commission on external purchases and rules limiting how developers could display payment buttons and links.
Epic challenged the restrictions. The court found Apple had violated the original injunction and held the company in civil contempt.
The companies’ competing arguments
Apple has repeatedly sought to overturn the contempt ruling. It argues that the injunction did not explicitly prohibit commissions on external purchases or additional limits on payment links, and says courts should enforce an order’s wording rather than its broader purpose.
Epic contends Apple deliberately introduced new rules that achieved the same effect as the practices the injunction barred. In its Supreme Court response, Epic said Apple was proposing an extreme standard that would let companies evade injunctions by adopting replacement policies.
Epic also alleges that Apple selected a 27% commission knowing that, when developers’ payment-handling costs were included, linked-out purchases would cost more than purchases made through Apple’s system. The article says an Apple executive acknowledged that linked-out transactions would be more expensive for developers than an In-App Purchase transaction at 30%.
Court filings and next steps
Apple appealed to the Supreme Court in May, and the court agreed to hear the case in June. Apple filed its opening brief in September, followed by briefs supporting its position from the U.S. government and several legal and business groups.
The U.S. government argued that the injunction did not clearly prohibit Apple’s 27% commission, while maintaining that Apple was properly held in contempt for restricting the display of external payment buttons. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of Progress and former federal antitrust enforcers also filed supporting briefs.
Epic accused Apple of seeking to conceal its actions by asserting privilege over more than 57,000 documents. It cited Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ finding that Apple’s Vice President of Finance had “outright lied under oath” about when the company decided to impose the commission. Epic asks the justices to uphold the contempt ruling or return the case to lower courts if they clarify the legal standard. Apple has until December 14 to file its final brief; oral arguments are scheduled for January 11, 2027.
Key points
- Epic wants the Supreme Court to uphold Apple’s civil contempt ruling over App Store payment restrictions.
- Apple says the injunction did not clearly bar its 27% commission or added limits on payment links.
- The U.S. government disputed the commission finding but supported contempt over restrictions on external payment buttons.
- Apple’s final brief is due December 14, before oral arguments scheduled for January 11, 2027.