VERIFIEDBy Xavier Rivera· ·3.5 min read
Apple Asks Supreme Court to Review App Store Contempt Ruling
Apple has formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review rulings that found it in contempt over App Store linking fees and led to a ban on collecting such fees. The company argues the contempt finding relied on violating the "spirit" of the order rather than its explicit terms and that the injunction improperly applies to millions of non-party developers worldwide.
Source:MacRumors
TL;DRAI · 60 sec read
Apple today formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the series of rulings that led to changes to App Store linking rules and fees in the United States.
In 2021, Apple largely won its legal dispute with Epic Games, but Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to relax its anti-steering rules and let developers link to alternate payment options in apps. Apple complied but charged a 12 to 27 percent fee on link-outs instead of its standard 15 to 30 percent fee. When taking into account fees from payment processors, there was little to no discount to developers, and few opted in. Apple also restricted button design, limiting developers to a single plain text link.
Epic Games went back to Gonzalez Rogers and said Apple was in violation of the court's order, and she agreed. In April 2025, she found Apple in contempt of court for willfully violating that 2021 injunction. Apple was then barred from collecting any fees on links in the U.S. App Store, and it has collected no money for link-outs in third-party apps since then.
Apple appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed Apple was in contempt of court, but said Apple should be able to charge a reasonable fee for its intellectual property. Apple does not want courts deciding the fees it is able to collect, so it is now asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Apple has two main issues with the appeals court ruling. First, Apple says holding it in civil contempt was not appropriate because the original injunction did not prevent it from charging developers a fee when linking to third-party payment options. The district court and the appeals court agreed that Apple violated the "spirit" of the injunction by charging a high fee. Apple argues that prior court decisions have only held a party in civil contempt when an order has been "clearly and unambiguously" violated. A contempt ruling based on "spirit" is a "recipe for abuse," Apple says.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 reinforces this understanding by demanding specificity in injunctions to ensure clear notice. The Ninth Circuit's spirit-based inquiry is antithetical to these requirements. Under that rule, the potent weapon of contempt turns on an amorphous, know-it-when-you-see-it inquiry that permits a court to impose contempt merely by declaring a violation of an order's "spirit."
As it has done in several other court filings, Apple also cites Trump v. CASA, a ruling that said lower courts do not have the authority to issue universal injunctions to block nationwide policies. Apple says the court ruling requiring it to drop fees for all developers goes far beyond the scope of the Epic Games case, and any relief ordered by the court should be limited to Epic Games.
Yet the injunction here enjoins Apple and the commissions it can charge with respect to millions of registered worldwide developers that are not parties to this case. It does so even though Epic never brought a class action and never attempted to show that enjoining Apple's conduct against all other developers—like Microsoft or Spotify, who have nothing to do with Epic—was somehow necessary to provide relief to Epic. According to Apple, the contempt ruling based on "spirit" and the order applicable to all developers "have combined to create an injunction that may reshape the global app marketplace." Apple wants the appeals court ruling thrown out entirely, with no court input on the fees that it charges. Failing that, Apple argues any order should be applicable only to Epic Games and not to all developers who offer apps through the U.S. App Store.
Epic Games and Apple agreed to an expedited schedule and Apple's petition will be considered on June 25.
In 2021, Apple largely won its legal dispute with Epic Games, but Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to relax its anti-steering rules and let developers link to alternate payment options in apps. Apple complied but charged a 12 to 27 percent fee on link-outs instead of its standard 15 to 30 percent fee. When taking into account fees from payment processors, there was little to no discount to developers, and few opted in. Apple also restricted button design, limiting developers to a single plain text link.
Epic Games went back to Gonzalez Rogers and said Apple was in violation of the court's order, and she agreed. In April 2025, she found Apple in contempt of court for willfully violating that 2021 injunction. Apple was then barred from collecting any fees on links in the U.S. App Store, and it has collected no money for link-outs in third-party apps since then.
Apple appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed Apple was in contempt of court, but said Apple should be able to charge a reasonable fee for its intellectual property. Apple does not want courts deciding the fees it is able to collect, so it is now asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Apple has two main issues with the appeals court ruling. First, Apple says holding it in civil contempt was not appropriate because the original injunction did not prevent it from charging developers a fee when linking to third-party payment options. The district court and the appeals court agreed that Apple violated the "spirit" of the injunction by charging a high fee. Apple argues that prior court decisions have only held a party in civil contempt when an order has been "clearly and unambiguously" violated. A contempt ruling based on "spirit" is a "recipe for abuse," Apple says.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 reinforces this understanding by demanding specificity in injunctions to ensure clear notice. The Ninth Circuit's spirit-based inquiry is antithetical to these requirements. Under that rule, the potent weapon of contempt turns on an amorphous, know-it-when-you-see-it inquiry that permits a court to impose contempt merely by declaring a violation of an order's "spirit."
As it has done in several other court filings, Apple also cites Trump v. CASA, a ruling that said lower courts do not have the authority to issue universal injunctions to block nationwide policies. Apple says the court ruling requiring it to drop fees for all developers goes far beyond the scope of the Epic Games case, and any relief ordered by the court should be limited to Epic Games.
Yet the injunction here enjoins Apple and the commissions it can charge with respect to millions of registered worldwide developers that are not parties to this case. It does so even though Epic never brought a class action and never attempted to show that enjoining Apple's conduct against all other developers—like Microsoft or Spotify, who have nothing to do with Epic—was somehow necessary to provide relief to Epic. According to Apple, the contempt ruling based on "spirit" and the order applicable to all developers "have combined to create an injunction that may reshape the global app marketplace." Apple wants the appeals court ruling thrown out entirely, with no court input on the fees that it charges. Failing that, Apple argues any order should be applicable only to Epic Games and not to all developers who offer apps through the U.S. App Store.
Epic Games and Apple agreed to an expedited schedule and Apple's petition will be considered on June 25.
HELP US IMPROVE
Reader-supported
The Circuitry is a passion project I've always wanted to build, and I love the work behind it.
Running it costs real money. APIs, hosting, time. To keep improving the site and growing this into something useful for everyone, those costs have to be covered.
Any contribution is appreciated. If not, no pressure. Thanks for reading.