Apple today formally asked the United States Supreme Court to review the series of decisions that led to changes to the App Store linking rules and fees in the United States.
In 2021, Apple largely won its dispute with Epic Games, but Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to relax its anti-steering rules and allow developers to connect to other in-app payment options. Apple complied, but charged 12 to 27 percent fees on links instead of its standard 15 to 30 percent fees. When factoring in payment processor fees, developers received little to no discount, and few opted for this option. Apple also restricted the button design, limiting developers to a single plain text link.
Epic Games went back to Gonzalez Rogers and said Apple had violated the court order, and she agreed. In April 2025, she held Apple in contempt of court for willfully violating this 2021 injunction. Apple was subsequently barred from collecting fees on links in the US App Store, and since then has not collected any money for links to third-party apps.
Apple appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed that Apple was in contempt of court, but said Apple should be able to charge reasonable fees for its intellectual property. Apple doesn’t want the courts to decide what fees it is able to collect, which is why it is now asking the Supreme Court to hear the case.
Apple has two main problems with the appeals court’s decision. First, Apple argues that it was not appropriate to hold it in civil contempt because the original injunction did not prevent it from charging developers fees when linking with third-party payment options. The district court and appeals court agreed that Apple violated the “spirit” of the injunction by charging high fees. Apple argues that previous court rulings have only held a party in civil contempt when an order has been “clearly and unambiguously” violated. A contempt decision based on “spirit” is a “recipe for abuse,” Apple says.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65 reinforces this understanding by requiring specificity of injunctions to ensure clear notice. The Ninth Circuit’s spiritual inquiry is contrary to these requirements. Under this rule, the powerful weapon of contempt relies on an amorphous, “know it when you see it” inquiry that allows a court to impose contempt simply by declaring a violation of the “spirit” of an order.
As it has in several other court filings, Apple also cites Trump v. CASA, a ruling that lower courts do not have the power to issue universal injunctions to block policies nationwide. Apple says the court’s decision requiring it to waive fees for all developers goes well beyond the scope of the Epic Games case, and any court-ordered relief should be limited to Epic Games.
Yet the injunction here enjoins Apple and the commissions it can charge with respect to millions of registered developers around the world who are not parties to this case. It does this even though Epic has never filed a class action lawsuit and has never attempted to demonstrate that prohibiting Apple’s conduct against all other developers, like Microsoft or Spotify, who have nothing to do with Epic, was in any way necessary to relieve Epic.
According to Apple, the “spirit” contempt ruling and the order applicable to all developers “have combined to create an injunction that has the potential to reshape the global app market.”
Apple wants the appeals court’s decision to be thrown out entirely, without any intervention from the court on the fees charged. Failing that, Apple maintains that any order should only be applicable to “Epic Games” and not to all developers who offer applications through the US App Store.
Epic Games and Apple have agreed to an accelerated schedule and Apple’s request 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 rule on its legal fight against “Epic Games” in January 2024, but the justices refused to hear the case. Justice Elena Kagan also recently denied Apple’s request to suspend the fee calculation mandate while Apple waits to hear from the Supreme Court.
