Apple has asked the Supreme Court to reverse or vacate a contempt order that forced changes to the App Store, filing its opening merits brief as it seeks to return the App Store to its pre–2025 rules.
The filing is part of Apple’s long-running legal battle with Epic Games that began in 2020. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers largely rejected Epic’s antitrust claims in the original trial but ordered Apple to relax its anti-steering rules and allow developers to link to alternative purchase options within apps. Apple implemented link-outs but charged fees of 12 to 27 percent on purchases made through those links, and few developers adopted the system.
Apple’s appeal and the contempt ruling
Epic returned to Judge Gonzalez Rogers arguing Apple had violated her injunction. In April 2025 the judge 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. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later upheld the contempt finding, and Apple appealed to the Supreme Court.
Apple’s brief reiterates its central argument: a court may not hold a party in civil contempt for violating the ‘spirit’ of an injunction when the injunction’s text does not address the conduct on which the contempt finding is based. The first injunction issued by Gonzalez Rogers contained no mention of the fees Apple could or could not charge, yet both the contempt ruling and the appeals court concluded Apple had violated the injunction’s spirit by imposing what they deemed excessive fees.
Citing cases dating back to 1885, Apple argues the Ninth Circuit departed from precedent by allowing contempt based on an alleged violation of an injunction’s spirit rather than a clear and unambiguous breach of its wording. Apple emphasizes there was no clear textual violation and notes the original injunction was only 75 words long.
Next steps and related proceedings
The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case in 2027. Epic Games will submit its response brief in November, after which Apple may file a reply brief.
While awaiting Supreme Court review, Apple will return to district court for fee calculations that would apply if the higher court does not overturn the contempt ruling and the related anti-steering order. The appeals court concluded the district court’s total ban on commissions went too far and remanded the matter to set a reasonable fee. Apple attempted to delay those proceedings but was unsuccessful.
