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.
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 percent fee on link-outs instead of its standard 15 to 30 percent 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.
Epic Games went back to Gonzalez Rogers and said Apple was in violation of the court's order, and she agreed. In April 2025, she found Apple in contempt of court for willfully violating that 2021 injunction. Apple was then barred from collecting any fees on links in the U.S. App Store, and it has collected no money for link-outs in third-party apps since then.
Apple appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed Apple was in contempt of court, but said Apple should be able to charge a reasonable fee for its intellectual property. Apple does not want courts deciding the fees it is able to collect, so it is now asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Apple has two main issues with the appeals court ruling. First, Apple says holding it in civil contempt was not appropriate because the original injunction did not prevent it from charging developers a fee when linking to third-party payment options. The district court and the appeals court agreed that Apple violated the "spirit" of the injunction by charging a high fee. Apple argues that prior court decisions have only held a party in civil contempt when an order has been "clearly and unambiguously" violated. A contempt ruling based on "spirit" is a "recipe for abuse," Apple says.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 reinforces this understanding by demanding specificity in injunctions to ensure clear notice. The Ninth Circuit's spirit-based inquiry is antithetical to these requirements. Under that rule, the potent weapon of contempt turns on an amorphous, know-it-when-you-see-it inquiry that permits a court to impose contempt merely by declaring a violation of an order's "spirit."
As it has done in several other court filings, Apple also cites Trump v. CASA, a ruling that said lower courts do not have the authority to issue universal injunctions to block nationwide policies. Apple says the court ruling requiring it to drop fees for all developers goes far beyond the scope of the Epic Games case, and any relief ordered by the court should be limited to Epic Games.
Yet the injunction here enjoins Apple and the commissions it can charge with respect to millions of registered worldwide developers that are not parties to this case. It does so even though Epic never brought a class action and never attempted to show that enjoining Apple's conduct against all other developers—like Microsoft or Spotify, who have nothing to do with Epic—was somehow necessary to provide relief to Epic.
According to Apple, the contempt ruling based on "spirit" and the order applicable to all developers "have combined to create an injunction that may reshape the global app marketplace."
Epic Games and Apple agreed to an expedited schedule and 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 in 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 to hear the case. Justice Elena Kagan also recently denied Apple's request for a stay of the fee calculation mandate while Apple waits to hear from the Supreme Court.
Update: In a statement to MacRumors, Epic Games Director of Corporate Communications Natalie Munoz said the following:
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.
