Apple Asks Supreme Court to Review App Store Contempt Ruling

Source: MacRumors

Apple today formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review the series of rulings that led to changes to App Store linking rules and fees in the United States.

Background

• In 2021, Apple largely won its legal dispute with Epic Games, but Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to relax its anti‑steering rules and let developers link to alternate payment options in apps.
• Apple complied, but charged a 12 % to 27 % fee on link‑outs instead of its standard 15 % to 30 % fee. When taking into account fees from payment processors, there was little to no discount to developers, and few opted in.
• Apple also restricted button design, limiting developers to a single plain‑text link.

Contempt Ruling

Apple was found in contempt of court for willfully violating the 2021 injunction. As a result:

• Apple was barred from collecting any fees on links in the U.S. App Store.
• It has collected no money for link‑outs in third‑party apps since then.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the contempt finding but said Apple should be able to charge a reasonable fee for its intellectual property. Apple argues that courts should not decide the fees it can collect and is now asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.

Apple’s Arguments

Civil Contempt Claim

1. Improper contempt finding – Apple says holding it in civil contempt was inappropriate because the original injunction did not prevent it from charging developers a fee when linking to third‑party payment options.
2. “Spirit” vs. “Letter” – The district court and the appeals court agreed Apple violated the spirit of the injunction by charging a high fee. Apple contends that prior decisions have only held a party in civil contempt when an order has been clearly and unambiguously violated.
3. Rule 65 – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 requires specificity in injunctions to ensure clear notice. Apple argues the Ninth Circuit’s spirit‑based inquiry conflicts with this rule, turning contempt into an amorphous “know‑it‑when‑you‑see‑it” standard.

Scope of the Injunction

• Apple cites Trump v. CASA, which held that lower courts lack authority to issue universal injunctions blocking nationwide policies.
• Apple maintains that the court’s order requiring it to drop fees for all developers goes far beyond the scope of the Epic Games case; any relief should be limited to Epic Games.
• The injunction, Apple argues, enjoins Apple and the commissions it can charge with respect to millions of worldwide developers who are not parties to the case, even though Epic never brought a class action.

Supreme Court Petition

• Apple and Epic Games agreed to an expedited schedule; Apple’s petition will be considered on June 25.
• Apple expects a decision on whether the Supreme Court will hear the case by the time the justices recess for the summer (late June or early July).
• Apple previously asked the Supreme Court to weigh in on its legal fight with Epic Games in January 2024, but the justices declined.
• Justice Elena Kagan recently denied Apple’s request for a stay of the fee‑calculation mandate while Apple awaits a Supreme Court decision.

Update

In a statement to MacRumors, Epic Games Director of Corporate Communications Natalie Munoz said:

“The Supreme Court has already rejected Apple’s attempt to overturn the injunction in this case. This challenge to the contempt order is one last Hail Mary to delay a conclusion to this case and avoid opening up the gates to payment competition for the benefit of consumers. The court proceedings and Apple’s own documents made it clear that Apple intentionally designed its sham compliance with the District Court’s order to prevent competition, clearly violating the District Court’s injunction.”

---

Tags: App Store, Epic Games, Epic Games vs. Apple