Apple asks Supreme Court review

Apple has taken its latest fight with Epic Games to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to narrow the reach of an injunction that changed how developers can direct users to outside payment options and to undo a contempt ruling against the company. TechCrunch reported on May 22 that Apple filed a petition for review that day after previously seeking emergency relief from the court. The move extends a dispute that began with Epic’s 2020 challenge to App Store rules and has since produced a permanent injunction, a contempt finding and multiple appeals. The Supreme Court had already declined to pause the lower-court order earlier this month. ### What exactly is Apple asking the Supreme Court to do? Apple is asking the justices to review two parts of the lower-court rulings: the contempt finding tied to its compliance with the Epic injunction and the breadth of the injunction itself. TechCrunch reported that Apple argued Epic’s lawsuit should not be used to reset App Store rules for every U.S. developer, including companies that were not parties to the case. A May 4 emergency application filed by Apple’s lawyers at Latham & Watkins framed the same issues in similar terms. That filing said the Ninth Circuit’s civil-contempt holding conflicted with limits on contempt power and that the injunction ruling imposed a form of universal relief that Apple said exceeded proper equitable limits. (techcrunch.com) ### Where does the contempt ruling come from? The Northern District of California entered the contempt-related order on April 30, 2025, according to the appendix Apple filed with the Supreme Court. That appendix lists the district court’s order granting Epic Games’ motion to enforce the injunction, denying several Apple motions and referring the matter to the U.S. attorney for possible criminal contempt proceedings. (supremecourt.gov) SCOTUSblog reported on May 6 that the contempt dispute stems from findings that Apple adopted measures that made it harder for developers to steer users outside the App Store and imposed a commission on purchases made through third-party systems after users clicked out from an app. ### Why is May 6 important in this Supreme Court fight? (supremecourt.gov) Justice Elena Kagan denied Apple’s emergency application on May 6, according to the Supreme Court docket. The docket shows Apple’s stay application was filed on May 4 and denied two days later without referral to the full court. SCOTUSblog said Apple had warned the court that, without a stay, it would be forced to litigate its commission rate “under an erroneous and prejudicial contempt label” in proceedings that could “reshape the global app market.” Epic, in its response, said Apple’s conduct had delayed “the restoration of competition” for more than two years. (scotusblog.com) (supremecourt.gov) ### How does this connect to the earlier Epic v. Apple case? The companies were already at the Supreme Court once after the Ninth Circuit’s 2023 decision in the original appeal. The Supreme Court docket shows Epic’s petition and Apple’s cross-petition were denied on January 16, 2024. The current Supreme Court fight grows out of later enforcement proceedings over the 2021 injunction rather than a fresh merits trial. (scotusblog.com) Apple’s appendix identifies the permanent injunction as dating to Sept. 10, 2021, and the latest Ninth Circuit proceedings as case No. 25-2935. (supremecourt.gov) ### What happens next at the court? The Supreme Court’s public docket for Apple’s emergency application is already closed as to the stay request, but a separate certiorari petition would begin the court’s regular review process if docketed. TechCrunch reported that Apple filed that petition on May 22. (supremecourt.gov) The next concrete step is docketing and briefing on Apple’s petition, with Epic Games expected to respond if the court calls for an opposition or if the filing is set on the normal schedule. The Supreme Court’s docket system will show any new case number, filing dates and orders as the petition moves forward. (supremecourt.gov) (techcrunch.com)