Apple appeals Epic contempt ruling

Apple has taken its fight with Epic Games back to the U.S. Supreme Court, this time over a contempt ruling rather than the original antitrust judgment. The filing asks the justices to review a lower-court decision that said Apple violated a 2021 injunction requiring it to let developers steer users to payment options outside the App Store. Apple is challenging both the finding that it was in civil contempt and the breadth of the injunction now governing how it can police external-payment links. The move comes two weeks after Justice Elena Kagan declined Apple’s request to pause the order while it prepared a full appeal. ### What exactly is Apple asking the Supreme Court to review? May 21 is when Apple asked the justices to step in after the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the contempt ruling and refused to vacate the injunction. Reuters reported that Apple is seeking review of the lower-court ruling that held it in contempt over fees charged on some outside purchases made by App Store users. (msn.com) The Ninth Circuit’s December 11, 2025 opinion said the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Apple in contempt, and said Apple’s conduct was shown by clear and convincing evidence. The appeals court also declined to vacate the injunction, while leaving room for Apple to make arguments about what commission, if any, it may lawfully charge in some third-party payment scenarios. (msn.com) ### How did Apple end up in contempt in the first place? September 10, 2021 is when U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to let developers include buttons, external links and other calls to action directing users to payment mechanisms outside Apple’s App Store. Apple later complied in form but adopted new rules that Epic said defeated the order in practice. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) April 30, 2025 is when Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in civil contempt after concluding that the company had imposed a 27% commission on purchases made outside the App Store within seven days of a user clicking a link and had limited how those links could look and function. The Ninth Circuit later said that 27% commission had a “prohibitive effect” and that Apple’s link-design restrictions also violated the injunction. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) ### Why does the 27% fee matter so much? The 27% figure sits at the center of the dispute because Apple’s standard in-app commission is 30%, making the outside-payment route only marginally cheaper for developers. Epic argued that structure preserved Apple’s economic control even after the 2021 injunction was supposed to open a path to alternative payments. (usnews.com) The Ninth Circuit agreed that the commission could violate the injunction because it effectively discouraged use of outside-payment links. Reuters reported earlier this month that the Supreme Court’s refusal to pause the order means Apple must return to Gonzalez Rogers in Oakland to continue litigating what commission it may lawfully charge. (usnews.com) ### Is this the first time the Supreme Court has seen the Apple-Epic case? January 16, 2024 is when the Supreme Court denied petitions from both Apple and Epic seeking review of the earlier Ninth Circuit decision on the underlying case. That left standing a mixed result: Apple defeated most of Epic’s federal antitrust claims, but the injunction under California unfair-competition law remained in place. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) May 6, 2026 is when Justice Kagan, acting for the court, denied Apple’s emergency request to pause the contempt order. Epic Chief Executive Tim Sweeney said then that “the Supreme Court has considered Apple’s delaying motion and found it unworthy,” according to Reuters. (supremecourt.gov) ### What happens next? The Supreme Court docket shows Apple already opened a related emergency matter on May 4, 2026, and Epic urged the court to handle the dispute through the ordinary certiorari process. Apple’s new petition now puts the merits question directly before the justices. The next steps are procedural but important: Epic can file its response, Apple can reply, and the justices will decide whether to hear the case. (usnews.com) If the court declines review, the fight returns to Gonzalez Rogers in the Northern District of California, where Apple and Epic are still disputing the commission Apple may charge on purchases made through external payment links. (supremecourt.gov)