Apple asks US Supreme Court to overturn civil contempt ruling in Epic Games antitrust case

Apple has filed an opening brief with the US Supreme Court in its antitrust dispute over the US App Store, asking the Court to vacate or overturn a prior civil contempt ruling against it. The dispute stems from an antitrust lawsuit Epic Games filed against Apple in 2020. The trial court found that Apple did not violate core antitrust law, but presiding Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an injunction in 2021 requiring Apple to relax its anti-steering restrictions and allow developers to provide in-app links directing users to third-party external purchase channels.

Apple subsequently permitted external links but charged commissions of 12% to 27% on transactions generated through those links, and few developers adopted the option. Epic sued Apple again. In April 2025, Rogers ruled that Apple deliberately violated the injunction and was in civil contempt, barring Apple from collecting any commission on link purchases in the US App Store. Apple appealed, but the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit rejected the appeal and upheld the ruling, after which Apple took the dispute to the Supreme Court.

In its brief to the Supreme Court, Apple focused its defense on judicial procedure and the boundaries of authority, asking the Court to decide whether a lower court may hold a party in civil contempt for violating the spirit of an injunction when the original injunction is entirely silent on the conduct at issue. Apple cited multiple historical precedents dating back to 1885, arguing that the Ninth Circuit's decision to find a violation of the injunction's spirit in the absence of explicit language contravenes long-standing judicial precedent. Apple stressed that Rogers's original injunction was only 75 English words long and never mentioned what percentage of commission Apple could or could not charge.

Epic Games plans to file its response brief in November 2026, after which Apple will file a reply. The Ninth Circuit had previously found that the district court's complete ban on commissions exceeded what was necessary and remanded the case to determine a reasonable commission rate; before the Supreme Court reaches a final outcome, Apple must still return to the district court to participate in the recalculation of a reasonable rate for external links.