Apple today filed a petition with the U.S. Supreme Court seeking review of two critical lower court rulings in its ongoing legal battle with Epic Games. The company hopes to overturn a contempt finding and limit the scope of an injunction that currently applies to all developers on the U.S. App Store. This latest move comes after years of litigation that began in 2020, when Epic Games deliberately circumvented Apple’s in-app purchase system in Fortnite, leading to a high-stakes antitrust lawsuit.

A timeline of the dispute

The conflict traces back to August 2020, when Epic Games introduced a server-side update that allowed Fortnite players to make purchases directly, bypassing Apple’s 30% commission. Apple swiftly removed the game from the App Store, and Epic filed a lawsuit alleging antitrust violations. Over the following months, the case wound through federal court, with both sides scoring victories and losses. In September 2021, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a ruling that largely rejected Epic’s antitrust claims but granted an injunction requiring Apple to allow developers to include “buttons, external links, or other calls to action” directing users to alternative payment methods outside Apple’s ecosystem.

Apple responded by introducing new App Store rules in early 2022, allowing developers to apply for an “External Link Account Entitlement.” However, the new rules imposed significant restrictions: developers had to display a system-provided warning screen, could not use any in-app messaging to promote external payments, and, crucially, Apple still charged a commission—27% for most developers and 12% for small businesses—on purchases made through those external links. Epic immediately challenged this compliance, arguing that the commission and restrictions effectively nullified the injunction’s purpose.

The contempt finding and Ninth Circuit appeal

In 2023, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California agreed with Epic, ruling that Apple was in contempt of the original injunction. The court found that Apple’s new rules did not meaningfully allow developers to steer users to cheaper alternatives, as the commission and friction created a “materially less attractive” option. Apple appealed to the Ninth Circuit, which in early 2025 gave the company a partial win. The appeals court reversed the district court’s outright ban on any commission—holding that Apple could charge a fee on external purchases—but it upheld the contempt finding against Apple. The Ninth Circuit sent the case back to the district court to determine what commission rate Apple could legally impose on those transactions.

Apple then sought emergency relief from the Supreme Court to pause these proceedings, arguing that the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning was flawed and that the case raised important legal questions. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court denied that stay request, allowing the district court to proceed with the next phase. Shortly after, Apple and Epic submitted a joint filing outlining an expedited schedule for the lower court hearings. Now, Apple has filed its broader petition for a writ of certiorari, asking the Supreme Court to review the contempt finding and the scope of the injunction itself.

Two questions for the justices

In its petition, Apple asks the Supreme Court to consider two distinct but interrelated legal questions. The first concerns the standard for civil contempt. Apple argues that the original injunction did not specifically address commissions—it only prevented Apple from blocking developers from including links to outside payment options. The company contends that imposing a commission on those external purchases is not the same as blocking the links, and that the Ninth Circuit erred by upholding the contempt finding based on the “spirit” of the order rather than its precise language. Apple cites a long-standing legal principle that a court order must “clearly and unambiguously” prohibit the conduct at issue before a party can be held in contempt for violating it. The company warns that allowing courts to find contempt based on an order’s perceived intent could create unpredictable liability for businesses trying to comply with complex injunctions.

The second question focuses on the injunction’s scope. The original order applies not just to Apple’s dealings with Epic, but to “all developers worldwide” with apps on the U.S. App Store storefront. Apple argues that this sweeping, industry-wide injunction exceeds the authority of federal courts under Article III of the Constitution and conflicts with the Supreme Court’s 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA, which limited the ability of courts to issue injunctions that extend beyond the parties in the case. Apple notes that the injunction covers companies that directly compete with Epic—such as other game publishers—and that Epic never prevailed on its federal antitrust claims, making the broad relief particularly inappropriate. The Ninth Circuit justified the broad scope by creating what Apple calls an “antitrust or competition exception” to CASA, but Apple contends that no such exception exists in the law.

Epic Games responds

In a statement provided to 9to5Mac, Epic Games dismissed Apple’s petition as a “last-ditch effort” to delay the outcome and avoid opening the App Store to genuine competition. “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,” the statement read. Epic added that the court proceedings and Apple’s own internal documents made it clear that “Apple intentionally designed its sham compliance with the District Court’s order to prevent competition, clearly violating the District Court’s injunction.” Epic has consistently argued that Apple’s commission on external purchases—which remains at 27% for most transactions—is effectively the same as the original 30% cut, only now applied to payments processed outside Apple’s system, creating a strong disincentive for developers to use alternative payment methods.

Legal significance and next steps

The Supreme Court’s decision on whether to hear the case has major implications for both the technology industry and the law of federal injunctions. If the Court grants certiorari, it could clarify the standard for civil contempt—particularly whether courts can punish parties for violating the “spirit” of an order—and address the growing tension over nationwide injunctions. The Trump v. CASA decision in 2025 was a landmark ruling that reined in the ability of district judges to issue broad, universal injunctions against federal policies, but its application to private commercial disputes remains untested. Apple’s case offers the Court an opportunity to extend that reasoning to injunctions between private parties.

The case also has practical consequences for app developers. If the Supreme Court ultimately rules in Apple’s favor, the company could maintain its commission on external purchases and potentially limit the injunction to Epic alone, leaving other developers subject to the full set of Apple’s prior rules. Conversely, if the Court sides with Epic—or declines to take the case—the district court will proceed to decide what commission Apple can charge, and developers may gain more freedom to offer cheaper alternatives outside Apple’s in-app payment system.

Because Apple and Epic have agreed to an expedited schedule in the lower court, the Supreme Court is under some pressure to act quickly. The justices could decide whether to take the case before their summer recess, potentially issuing an order in late June or early July 2026. If the Court declines to hear the appeal, the Ninth Circuit’s rulings will stand, and the district court will continue to oversee the remedy phase. If the Court accepts the case, oral arguments would likely be scheduled for the next term, with a decision expected in 2027.

—

This article has been rewritten to provide expanded background, legal analysis, and context for the ongoing Apple vs. Epic Games litigation.

Source: 9to5Mac News