Apple Fires Back at Epic in Supreme Court App Store Appeal

Apple is continuing its push for U.S. Supreme Court review of the App Store contempt ruling that found its 27 percent commission on out-of-app purchases violated a court injunction, filing a new brief that challenges Epic Games' opposition to the appeal.



The legal battle stems from a civil contempt ruling over App Store commissions on purchases made outside apps. While the Supreme Court rejected Apple's request for an emergency stay last month, that decision simply allowed lower court proceedings to continue under an agreed legal schedule. Apple's petition for certiorari remains active, and this latest filing directly attacks arguments Epic made in its recent Brief in Opposition.


A major focal point of the filing is the legal standard used to hold Apple in contempt. Epic argued that Apple violated the express terms of a 2021 injunction when it instituted a 27 percent fee on out-of-app purchases. Apple says Epic is trying to rewrite history, arguing that while the Ninth Circuit ultimately found the commission violated the injunction, the appeals court also acknowledged that the injunction's text did not expressly address commissions. According to Apple, the court instead relied on the injunction's broader "spirit" when upholding the contempt ruling.

Apple also challenges the nationwide scope of the injunction. The company argues the Ninth Circuit improperly ignored recent Supreme Court precedent that limits equitable relief to the parties actually involved in a lawsuit. Instead of restricting the remedy to Epic Games, Apple says the injunction applies to developers throughout the App Store's U.S. storefront, including many who are not parties to the case. The company claims Epic failed to provide a convincing explanation for why such broad relief is justified.

The filing concludes by warning that letting the Ninth Circuit's decision stand would create a "magnet for forum shopping," encouraging plaintiffs to file cases in courts they believe are more likely to grant broad injunctions. Apple maintains that the Supreme Court needs to intervene to ensure consistent legal standards are applied to both civil contempt rulings and the scope of injunctions following the Court's 2025 decision in Trump v. CASA.

Read More