Apple asks Supreme Court to block contempt
- Apple asked the U.S. Supreme Court on May 4 to freeze a Ninth Circuit mandate that lets lower courts keep enforcing contempt sanctions. - The fight centers on Apple’s old 27% fee on purchases made outside apps, plus link restrictions a judge said openly defied her injunction. - If Apple loses the stay, judges can start fixing remedies now — with consequences for App Store pricing beyond this case.
Apple’s latest move is not really about winning the Epic case outright. That part mostly happened years ago. This is about stopping the consequences from kicking in now. After losing a contempt appeal, Apple went to the U.S. Supreme Court on May 4 and asked Justice Elena Kagan to pause the Ninth Circuit’s mandate while Apple prepares a full Supreme Court appeal. (supremecourt.gov) ### What is Apple trying to stop? Apple wants to stop the lower courts from moving ahead with the remedy phase of the contempt fight. The Ninth Circuit upheld Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ finding that Apple violated the 2021 anti-steering injunction, a(supremecourt.gov) that process should wait until the Supreme Court decides whether to hear the case at all. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) ### Why was Apple held in contempt? Because the original injunction said Apple could not stop developers from steering users to other payment options. Apple technically allowed outside links, but then wrapped them in conditions — including a 27% commission on many external purchases and design rules that made those links (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov)aith, and referred the matter for possible criminal contempt review after finding Apple had acted in bad faith. (lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com) ### Why does the 27% number matter so much? Because it shows the dispute is about economics, not just buttons and links. Apple’s normal in-app commission was 30% for many transactions. Its outside-payment setup shaved only a little off that take, which let Apple arg(lit-antitrust.aoshearman.com)side the App Store and called it a workaround. (perkinscoie.com) ### What is Apple telling the Supreme Court? Apple argues the contempt order is forcing major business changes before higher-court review is finished. In its application, Apple says the lower court is using contempt proceedings to reshape App Store rules in a way with broad cons(perkinscoie.com)when a party wants the Supreme Court to hit pause before deciding whether to take the case. (supremecourt.gov) ### What is Epic saying back? Epic’s line is simple — this is delay. Tim Sweeney said Apple is trying to stall relief that developers already won and keep fee rules in limbo for as long as possible. That tracks with Epic’s broader strategy in this case: force a real opening of iPhone payments, not a symbolic one with nearly the same economics underneath. (9to5mac.com) ### Why does this matter beyond Fortnite? Because this is now a test of how much control Apple can keep after a court says it must allow competition around payments. If Apple can preserve a near-App-Store-sized commission outside the App Store, then the injunction loses a lot of bite. (9to5mac.com) game makers, and any business selling digital goods on iPhones. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) ### What happens next? Justice Kagan can act on the stay request herself or refer it to the full Court. If the stay is denied, the lower-court process can keep moving while Apple still tries to file a cert petition. So the immediate question is not who wins the whole war. It is whether Apple has to start living with the loss now. (supremecourt.gov) The bottom line is that Apple is asking the Supreme Court for time. Epic is trying to turn a legal win into an actual market change. And the 27% fee is the whole hinge — because that is where “opening the App Store” either becomes real or stays mostly cosmetic. (supremecourt.gov)
