The US Supreme Court has agreed to hear Apple’s appeal of the contempt ruling that forced it to change its App Store linking rules, reports Reuters.
In a statement to WoozadApple said the court’s decision was good news.
This is an important question of law and we are pleased that the Supreme Court is hearing our case.
Apple asked the Supreme Court to review the ruling in May, and it was unclear whether the request would be granted because the court previously declined to rule on the dispute. The 2024 denial involved the Epic Games commission’s initial battle against Apple, but the case has since gotten spicier and piqued the interest of the Supreme Court.
Apple largely won the Epic Games case in 2021 and did not violate antitrust law, but Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, the judge overseeing the case, ordered Apple to relax its anti-steering rules and allow developers to connect other payment options in apps. Apple agreed, but ended up charging 12-27% fees on links instead of 15-30%. By adding fees to payment processors, developers had more problems with little to no reduction, leading to few developers using the new link system.
Epic Games accused Apple of violating the judge’s order and took Apple to court. Gonzalez Rogers agreed with Epic and, in April 2025, held Apple in contempt of court for willfully violating the 2021 injunction. She barred Apple from charging fees on links in the US App Store, and Apple changed its App Store rules to comply.
Apple appealed and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the contempt finding, leading Apple to appeal again to the Supreme Court.
Apple argued that the contempt ruling was inappropriate due to the wording of the original order and Apple’s implementation. The original order did not prohibit Apple from charging fees when developers tied to third-party payment options, but the district court and appeals court said Apple violated the “spirit” of the injunction by charging fees that were too high. Apple said a contempt ruling based on the “spirit” rather than the text of the decision is a “recipe for abuse.” Apple wants the Supreme Court to overturn the contempt ruling because there was no clear and unambiguous violation.
Apple also asked the court to evaluate the scope of the injunction, which Apple said should only apply to “Epic Games” and not all developers. Apple relied heavily on Trump v. CASA, a recent ruling that lower courts do not have the authority to issue universal injunctions to block policies nationwide.
In its petition to the Supreme Court, Apple said the spirit-based contempt ruling and the order requiring it to change its policies toward all developers “combined to create an injunction that has the potential to reshape the global app market.” Apple’s argument that the outcome of the case could lead to regulatory changes around the world may also have convinced the court to rule on the case.
The Supreme Court will hear the case during its next term which begins in October after the summer vacation. While Apple awaits the Supreme Court’s decision, it will return to the district court for the calculation of fees that will take effect if the higher court does not vacate the contempt ruling and the resulting anti-steering order. Apple was sent back to the district court because the appeals court found that the district court’s total ban on commissions went too far and sent it back to set reasonable fees.
Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion on this topic, the discussion thread is located in our political news forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
