Apple asks Supreme Court review

Apple asked the U.S. Supreme Court on May 21 to review the contempt ruling that grew out of its long-running App Store fight with Epic Games, escalating a dispute over how iPhone app developers can direct users to pay outside Apple’s in-app purchase system. Reuters reported the filing on Thursday, and Apple’s earlier emergency stay application shows the company is pressing two legal questions tied to the contempt finding and the scope of the injunction. The case traces back to Epic’s 2020 lawsuit, a 2021 injunction from U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, and a later fight over whether Apple complied when it rewrote App Store rules for external links. The Supreme Court’s docket shows Apple separately sought a stay on May 4 and Justice Elena Kagan denied that request on May 6. (money.usnews.com) ### What is Apple asking the justices to review? Apple’s May 4 stay application said it intended to seek certiorari on two issues: whether a court can hold a party in contempt for violating the “implicit command” or “spirit” of an injunction, and whether relief in Epic’s case can extend beyond Epic itself to millions of App Store developers. The filing said the Ninth Circuit’s ruling conflicted with limits on contempt power and with Supreme Court precedent on equitable relief. (supremecourt.gov) Reuters reported on May 21 that Apple formally asked the justices to review the contempt order itself. Apple argued, according to Reuters, that the injunction should not apply across the developer base because Epic was the only plaintiff and the case was not a class action. (supremecourt.gov) ### Which lower-court ruling put Apple in contempt? The Ninth Circuit on December 11, 2025 affirmed in part and reversed in part Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ contempt order and declined to vacate the injunction. The appellate panel said Apple had claimed to comply with the injunction but instead required developers using external links to pay a 27% commission and imposed design restrictions that made those links harder for customers to use. (money.usnews.com) The same opinion said the district court did not abuse its discretion in finding Apple in contempt and that civil contempt was shown by clear and convincing evidence. The panel also said two restrictions violated the “strict letter” of the injunction and others violated its “implicit command” not to defeat it. ### Why does the 27% commission matter so much in this appeal? (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) The Ninth Circuit said Apple’s 27% commission on linked-out purchases had a “prohibitive effect,” which it held violated the injunction. That finding goes to the center of the dispute because the original order barred Apple from stopping developers from including buttons, external links or other calls to action directing customers to outside purchasing mechanisms. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) Epic told the Supreme Court in its May 5 stay response that Apple had used a “scheme to evade the injunction,” and urged the court to deny emergency relief while allowing certiorari briefing to proceed in due course. Justice Kagan denied the stay the next day without referring the application to the full court, according to the docket. (cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov) ### Where did this fight start? Epic Games sued Apple in 2020 after challenging App Store rules that required use of Apple’s payment system for digital goods and limited how developers could steer users to alternatives. The Supreme Court had already declined review of the earlier merits-stage petitions in January 2024, after the Ninth Circuit’s 2023 decision largely left intact the 2021 injunction on Apple’s anti-steering rules. (supremecourt.gov) Judge Gonzalez Rogers’ April 30, 2025 contempt order found Apple willfully violated the injunction, according to court coverage and later appellate filings. CNBC reported at the time that the judge also referred the matter to federal prosecutors to examine possible criminal contempt proceedings. ### What happens next in Washington? (supremecourt.gov) The Supreme Court docket will show the next formal steps if Apple’s petition is docketed as a merits case and Epic files its response. The justices have already denied Apple’s emergency stay request in docket 25A1213, but Apple is now seeking full review of the underlying contempt ruling. (supremecourt.gov) (cnbc.com)