Apple Asks Supreme Court to Review App Store Contempt Ruling

Petition for Review

Apple has filed a formal request with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of lower court decisions that altered its App Store policies on external payment links and related commissions within the United States.

Background of the Dispute

Following the 2021 outcome in which Apple prevailed on most claims brought by Epic Games, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers required the company to ease restrictions that had barred developers from directing users toward outside payment methods. Apple reportedly implemented changes yet imposed commissions ranging from 12 to 27 percent on those link-outs, compared with its standard 15 to 30 percent cut. After factoring in payment processor charges, developers saw minimal savings, resulting in limited adoption. The company further confined link appearances to one basic text-only button.

Epic Games returned to the district court alleging noncompliance, and the judge concurred. In April 2025 Gonzalez Rogers held Apple in contempt for deliberately breaching the 2021 injunction. The ruling prohibited any fee collection on U.S. links, and the company has received no such revenue from third-party apps since.

Appeals and Current Arguments

Apple challenged the contempt order. The Ninth Circuit upheld the finding but indicated the company could impose a reasonable charge tied to its intellectual property. Because Apple opposes judicial determination of its pricing, it has turned to the Supreme Court.

The petition identifies two primary objections to the appellate decision. Apple maintains that civil contempt was unwarranted, as the original injunction never explicitly barred fees on links to external payment systems. Both the district and appeals courts concluded that the levied commissions violated the injunction's "spirit." Apple contends that established precedent limits civil contempt to situations in which an order has been "clearly and unambiguously" violated. It describes a contempt finding grounded in "spirit" as "a recipe for abuse."

The company adds that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 requires injunctions to be specific so parties receive clear notice. According to Apple, the Ninth Circuit's approach contradicts that standard by allowing contempt based on a vague standard. The firm has repeatedly cited the ruling in Trump v. CASA, which held that lower courts lack power to issue universal injunctions blocking nationwide policies. Apple argues the order mandating zero fees for every developer exceeds the Epic Games dispute and should apply solely to that party.

"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," the filing states. It notes that Epic never pursued class-action status or demonstrated why relief for unrelated developers such as Microsoft or Spotify was required to remedy its own claims. Apple warns that the "spirit"-based contempt finding together with the universal scope "have combined to create an injunction that may reshape the global app marketplace."

The company seeks to have the contempt ruling vacated entirely so courts play no role in setting its fees. In the alternative, it asks that any relief be confined to Epic Games rather than all U.S. App Store developers.

Next Steps

Epic Games and Apple have stipulated to an expedited briefing schedule, with the petition scheduled for consideration on June 25. A decision on whether the justices will accept the case is anticipated by the time the court recesses for summer in late June or early July. The Supreme Court previously declined Apple's 2024 request to review the underlying Epic Games litigation. Justice Elena Kagan recently rejected Apple's application for a stay of the fee-related mandate pending the current petition.

In a statement to MacRumors, Epic Games Director of Corporate Communications Natalie Munoz said the Supreme Court has already rejected Apple's attempt to overturn the injunction in this case. "This challenge to the contempt order is one last Hail Mary to delay a conclusion to this case and avoid opening up the gates to payment competition for the benefit of consumers," Munoz added. She noted that court records and Apple's own documents showed the company "intentionally designed its sham compliance with the District Court's order to prevent competition, clearly violating the District Court's injunction."