Abstract:
Regarding the protracted App Store antitrust dispute between Apple and Epic Games, Apple has officially submitted an opening argument brief to the U.S. Supreme Court, requesting the Supreme Court to revoke or overturn its previous "civil contempt of court" ruling against it. If the appeal is ultimately supported by the Supreme Court, the US App Store is expected to return to the charging and management mechanism before the 2025 rule adjustment.
The origin of this lawsuit can be traced back to the antitrust lawsuit launched by Epic Games against Apple in 2020. Although the court of first instance ultimately found that Apple did not violate core antitrust laws, presiding judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an injunction in 2021, requiring Apple to relax "anti-diversion" restrictions and allow developers to provide links within apps that jump to third-party external purchase channels. Although Apple subsequently liberalized external links, it charged a commission of 12% to 27% for transactions generated through external links, resulting in few developers being willing to adopt this solution. For this reason, Epic once again took Apple to court. In April 2025, Judge Rogers ruled that Apple deliberately violated the injunction and constituted "contempt of court", comprehensively prohibiting Apple from charging any commission for external link purchases in the US App Store. Apple appealed the ruling, but the decision was rejected by the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the ruling was upheld. Apple then appealed the dispute to the Supreme Court.
In its latest brief submitted to the Supreme Court, Apple focused its defense on the boundaries of judicial procedures and authority. Apple asked the Supreme Court to rule on whether the court has the authority to hold the parties in civil contempt for violating the so-called "spirit" of the injunction when the lower court's original injunction was completely silent on the relevant disputed conduct. In its brief, Apple cited multiple historical precedents dating back to 1885, arguing that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' conviction of a "mental violation" in the absence of an express prohibition was a dangerous move that violated long-standing judicial precedent. Apple emphasized that the original injunction issued by Judge Rogers contained only 75 English words, and it never mentioned what proportion of commissions Apple could charge or be prohibited from collecting. Therefore, Apple's actions did not constitute a violation of the clear terms of the injunction.
According to the judicial trial schedule, the Supreme Court is expected to officially hear the case in 2027. Epic Games plans to submit a defense brief to the court in November this year, and Apple will subsequently submit a defense rebuttal. During this period, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals previously held that the district court’s “total prohibition of commission” went beyond what was necessary and sent the case back to determine a “reasonable” commission ratio. Before the final result of the Supreme Court is released, Apple still needs to return to the district court to participate in the recalculation process of external link reasonable rates.
Related articles:
Apple finance executive found in contempt of court for "outright lies" in Epic Games ruling
Comments