The U.S. Supreme Court has accepted Apple’s appeal seeking to overturn a contempt finding tied to its long-running legal fight with Epic Games over App Store practices. The justices agreed to consider whether a lower-court ruling upholding a contempt determination should stand after a federal judge found Apple to have violated a court order that mandated significant changes to how the company handles App Store transactions.
The contempt finding stems from Epic Games’ 2020 lawsuit challenging Apple’s control over in-app transactions and the distribution of apps on devices running Apple’s iOS operating system. That litigation produced a 2021 injunction issued by the federal judge in Oakland, California, which required Apple to allow developers to include links in their apps that direct users to payment methods outside the App Store.
Apple implemented the required links but also introduced restrictions tied to off-App Store payments, including a policy that levied a 27% commission on developers for purchases made through external payment systems when those purchases occur within seven days of a user clicking a link in the app. For purchases processed inside the App Store, Apple continues to charge a 30% commission.
Epic argued those new restrictions, and specifically the 27% commission, violated the earlier injunction. In 2025, the trial judge found Apple in civil contempt for failing to comply with the court’s 2021 order. That contempt finding was later upheld by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in December, although the appeals court permitted Apple to advance additional arguments about what commission it should be allowed to charge for digital goods purchased in apps distributed through the App Store but paid for via third-party payment systems.
That follow-on effort to determine allowed commission levels has not yet begun in the Oakland district court. Meanwhile, Apple has denied that it violated the judge’s order. In its filing to the Supreme Court, Apple urged that the injunction should not be extended to millions of developers beyond Epic Games and emphasized the broader consequences of the dispute, saying the legal questions at issue will affect how millions of app purchases are made.
Apple also told the Supreme Court in a filing that "Regulators around the world are watching this case to determine what commission rate Apple may charge on covered purchases in huge markets outside the United States." The company is asking the justices to weigh in on both the contempt finding and the scope of the injunction.
The Supreme Court is expected to hear argument on the appeal during its next term, which begins in October. The case adds to a list of issues stemming from the Epic Games litigation that have reached the highest court or drawn extended appellate attention, with the contempt ruling and the precise obligations imposed on Apple among the latest contested points to reach the appellate ladder.
Summary
The Supreme Court will review whether Apple was properly held in contempt for the manner in which it implemented post-injunction App Store rules ordered in 2021, including policies that imposed a 27% commission on certain off-App Store purchases. The Court’s decision could determine the scope of obligations imposed by the injunction and which developers are covered.
Key points
- The Supreme Court agreed to hear Apple’s appeal of a contempt finding related to the company’s App Store policies following Epic Games’ 2020 lawsuit.
- Apple implemented required links to external payment methods but instituted a 27% commission on covered off-App Store purchases, while maintaining a 30% App Store commission.
- The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the contempt finding in December but allowed Apple to argue about permissible commission levels in subsequent district-court proceedings; that next step has not yet started in Oakland.
Risks and uncertainties
- Uncertainty over whether the Supreme Court will overturn the contempt finding - this affects Apple, developers and digital marketplace rules.
- Pending proceedings to determine allowable commission rates could materially change how app transactions are charged, impacting app developers and payment processors.
- Ambiguity about the geographic and developer scope of the injunction - Apple contends it should not apply to millions of developers beyond Epic, while opponents argue for broader application; this raises regulatory attention internationally.