Apple appeals Epic ruling to Supreme Court

Apple has taken its latest App Store fight with Epic Games to the U.S. Supreme Court. On May 21, Apple asked the justices to review a Ninth Circuit ruling that upheld a contempt finding against the company and left in place an injunction limiting how it can police developers’ links to outside payment options. (msn.com) The filing is the newest turn in litigation that began in 2020, when Epic sued over Apple’s App Store rules. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) Apple largely beat Epic’s federal antitrust claims, but courts separately ordered it to stop blocking developers from steering users to payment methods outside Apple’s in-app purchase system. (supremecourt.gov) Apple already asked the Supreme Court for emergency relief on May 4, and Justice Elena Kagan denied that request on May 6. The new filing seeks full Supreme Court review rather than a temporary pause. ### What exactly is Apple asking the Supreme Court to undo? (msn.com) Apple is asking the justices to narrow the injunction won by Epic and to reverse the contempt ruling tied to Apple’s response to that injunction. TechCrunch, citing Apple’s petition, reported that Apple argued Epic did not bring a class action and did not show why relief should extend to all U.S. App Store developers. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) The Ninth Circuit’s December 11, 2025 decision affirmed the district court’s finding that Apple violated the injunction after claiming to comply with it. The appeals court said Apple imposed restrictions on links and charged commissions on some outside purchases in ways that defeated the order’s purpose. (supremecourt.gov) ### Why does the 27% fee matter so much in this appeal? The Ninth Circuit said Apple’s 27% commission on certain external purchases had a “prohibitive effect” and violated the injunction. The court also said Apple’s design restrictions on external links improperly interfered with developers’ ability to direct users to outside payment mechanisms. (techcrunch.com) That matters because the original injunction did not force Apple to allow rival app stores on iPhones. Instead, it targeted anti-steering rules — the limits that kept developers from telling users inside an app that they could pay elsewhere. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) ### What legal argument is Apple making now? Apple’s May 4 stay application previewed the arguments it is now pressing more fully. In that filing, Apple said the Ninth Circuit’s contempt holding conflicted with limits on civil contempt and that the injunction’s scope raised broader questions about nationwide relief. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) TechCrunch reported that Apple’s petition argues a court should not hold a party in civil contempt for violating the “spirit” of an injunction when the injunction did not expressly ban commissions on outside purchases. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) ### How has Epic responded? Epic has cast Apple’s move as another attempt to delay the case. TechCrunch reported that Epic said Apple was making “one last Hail Mary” to avoid opening the App Store to more payment competition. Epic also opposed Apple’s earlier emergency application. (supremecourt.gov) In its May 6 filing, Epic asked the court to deny a stay and said Apple’s arguments did not warrant immediate intervention. ### What happens next at the Supreme Court? The Supreme Court’s docket shows Apple’s emergency application was opened as case 25A1213 on May 4 and denied on May 6. (techcrunch.com) A merits petition would follow the court’s regular certiorari process, with briefing from Epic before the justices decide whether to hear the case. If the court denies review, the lower-court rulings stay in place. (techcrunch.com) If the justices grant review, Apple and Epic will return to the Supreme Court for another round in a dispute that has already produced one denied Apple petition in January 2024 and a new appellate ruling in December 2025. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) (supremecourt.gov 1) (supremecourt.gov 2)