Apple has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to take up a dispute over a lower court ruling that found the company in civil contempt for fees it imposed on certain purchases made by App Store users through external payment mechanisms.
The filing continues a multi-year legal confrontation with Epic Games, the maker of the video game Fortnite, which filed suit in 2020 seeking to reduce Apple's control over how transactions are conducted within apps running on the iOS platform and how apps are distributed to consumers.
A trial judge largely dismissed Epic's broader antitrust claims but in 2021 imposed an injunction requiring Apple to permit developers to include links inside their apps that direct users to payment methods outside the App Store. Apple implemented the mandated links but attached further limitations to their use.
Among those limitations was a policy that charged developers a 27% commission on purchases that were paid using third-party payment systems if the purchase occurred within seven days of a user clicking a permitted external link. Epic argued that the 27% fee violated the 2021 injunction by effectively undermining the relief the court had ordered.
In 2025, the trial judge ruled that Apple's conduct amounted to civil contempt for breaching the injunction. Apple responded by asking the Supreme Court to consider two discrete legal questions raised by the contempt finding.
First, Apple contends the injunction should not have the effect of binding millions of developers because Epic is the sole plaintiff in the litigation and the suit was not pursued as a class action. The company asserts that relief granted to one plaintiff cannot be extended automatically to an entire developer community.
Second, Apple argues it should not be held in contempt for allegedly violating the "spirit" of a court order when the injunction did not expressly prohibit the specific conduct at issue. In other words, Apple maintains that civil contempt requires a clearer, explicit prohibition than what the court's 2021 injunction provided.
Apple has denied any wrongdoing. Epic Games did not immediately provide a response to a request for comment.
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in December affirmed the contempt finding but left open some procedural room for Apple; the appeals court said Apple may present new arguments in the trial court about what level of commission it may lawfully charge for digital goods purchased in apps distributed through the App Store when payment is completed via third-party systems.
The petition to the Supreme Court represents the latest procedural escalation in a case that continues to raise questions about the boundaries of injunctive relief and how remedies in one plaintiff's suit affect broader industry participants. The high court must now decide whether to review the lower-court rulings and the legal questions Apple has identified.