Apple Asks Supreme Court to Throw Out App Store Contempt Ruling

Monday September 14, 2026 4:28 pm PDT by Juli Clover

Apple today filed its opening merits brief with the Supreme Court as it prepares to fight the contempt ruling that forced it to change its App Store rules. Apple is asking the Supreme Court to reverse or vacate the contempt order, which would return the ‌App Store‌ to its pre–2025 rules.

The Supreme Court filing is part of Apple's ongoing legal battle with Epic Games, which has gotten more and more complicated since it kicked off in 2020. Apple largely won the original ruling because it wasn't found to have violated antitrust law, but Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, the judge overseeing the case, ordered Apple to relax its anti-steering rules and let developers link to alternative purchase options in apps.

Apple complied, but charged a 12 to 27 percent fee on link-outs, and few developers adopted the system. Epic went back to Gonzalez Rogers and said Apple violated her injunction, and she agreed. In April 2025, she found Apple in contempt of court and barred the company from collecting any fees on purchases made through links in the U.S. ‌App Store‌.

Apple changed its ‌App Store‌ rules to comply with the new ruling but appealed. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the contempt finding, and Apple appealed to the Supreme Court.

Today's brief repeats Apple's main argument and asks the Supreme Court to decide whether a court can hold a party in civil contempt for violating the "spirit" of an injunction when the injunction does not address the conduct the contempt ruling is based on.

The first injunction from Gonzalez Rogers had no mention of the fees Apple was or wasn't allowed to charge, but both the original contempt ruling and the court of appeals agreed Apple had violated the "spirit" of the injunction when it charged fees that were too high.

Citing cases dating back to 1885, Apple argues the Ninth Circuit broke with precedent when it said Apple could be held in contempt for violating the spirit of an injunction. Apple says it cannot be held in contempt because there was no clear and unambiguous violation of the injunction's wording. Apple repeatedly points out the original injunction was just 75 words long.

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case in 2027. ‌Epic Games‌ will submit its response brief in November, and then Apple will be able to submit a reply brief.

While Apple waits for the Supreme Court, it will be going back to district court for fee calculations that would be implemented if the higher court does not toss out the contempt ruling and resulting anti-steering order. Apple was ordered back to district court because the appeals court found the district court's total ban on commissions went too far, and sent it back to set a reasonable fee. Apple attempted to delay the proceedings but was unsuccessful.

Note: This discussion thread is located in our Political News forum with special rules.

Tags: App Store, Epic Games, Epic Games vs. Apple Guide, Apple Lawsuits

Top Rated Comments

webkit

8 weeks ago

YEAH IT'S THEIR STORE AND THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY WANT !

The App Store is the major gateway to the large, lucrative iOS/iPhone market, and the primary way developers access that market. Apple can set certain rules for its store but if/when those rules significantly affect competition, consumer choice, etc. they can be subject to varying antitrust/competition laws and regulations. Just because it's "their store" doesn't give them total freedom to do whatever they want with it.

Score: 7 Votes (Like | Disagree)

BBCWatcher

8 weeks ago

The Supreme Court filing is part of Apple's ongoing legal battle with Epic Games, which has gotten more and more complicated since it kicked off in 2020. Apple largely won the original ruling because it wasn't found to have violated antitrust law, but Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, the judge overseeing the case, ordered Apple to relax its anti-steering rules ('https://www.macrumors.com/2021/09/10/epic-games-vs-apple-decision/') and let developers link to alternative purchase options in apps.

Apple complied, but charged a 12 to 27 percent fee on link-outs, and few developers adopted the system. Epic went back to Gonzalez Rogers and said Apple violated her injunction, and she agreed. In April 2025, she found Apple in contempt of court ('https://www.macrumors.com/2025/04/30/apple-app-store-anti-steering-injunction-violation/') and barred the company from collecting any fees on purchases made through links in the U.S. App Store.

There’s some more legal context here that’s important. If Apple felt the judge’s injunction wasn’t clear enough, Apple simply could’ve asked the judge to clarify her injunction. Litigants frequently ask judges for clarification, and Apple has done that before. But Apple didn’t do that on this occasion. In fact, usually the way this works is that the judge asks the winning party to draft her order (subject to her review and possible editing) but to confer with the other party to check if they can agree on specific language or at least narrow their differences.

If there was any ambiguity in this injunction, Apple wanted it that way or at least tolerated it.

Also, both the trial judge and the Ninth Circuit have ruled that Apple did NOT comply with the judge's injunction. Thus it's legally factually incorrect to write "Apple complied" unless and until the Supreme Court rules that Apple complied.

Score: 5 Votes (Like | Disagree)

webkit

8 weeks ago

Meh, their phone, their store, their business… not happy? Go to android !

If having an alternative or alternatives is basically all that matters then if Apple is not happy with the "rules" in certain states, provinces, countries, etc. perhaps they can go (or continue to do business) elsewhere. California is only one of 50 states. The U.S. is only one of nearly 200 countries. There are MANY "alternatives" for Apple.

Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)

danpass

8 weeks ago

The "spirit" of the law is NEVER applied against the state .... so it should never be applied against the defendant.

Ask any lawyer when the "spirit" of the law applies.

:crickets"

IANAL but this should have been crushed by the 9th Circuit. But I guess that's why it's called the 9th Circus.

-

Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)

jz0309

8 weeks ago

and so it continues, I can't wait for this to come to an end so I don't have to look for "Epic" stories on MR anymore, but knowing them ... oh one can dream ...

Score: 3 Votes (Like | Disagree)