Apple Petitions Supreme Court Over Epic Games Contempt Finding

Apple has formally petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review a legal ruling that found the company in civil contempt of court regarding its App Store payment policies [1]. The tech giant is challenging both the finding of contempt and the scope of the injunction issued by lower courts in the long-running antitrust dispute with Epic Games [1].

Key takeaways

• Apple argues courts used the "spirit" of an order rather than its text to find contempt [1].
• The 9th Circuit upheld the contempt ruling but allowed Apple to charge "reasonable fees" [1, 4].
• Epic claims Apple is using delay tactics and engaged in "bad faith" compliance [1, 4].
• The Supreme Court is expected to decide on hearing the case by early July [1].

Apple challenges legal standards and injunction scope

In a 34-page petition, Apple asserts that the district and appellate courts incorrectly based the contempt ruling on the "spirit" of a 2021 injunction rather than its explicit text [1]. The company argues that civil contempt should only apply when a command is violated "clearly and unambiguously" [1]. Furthermore, Apple cites the 2025 Trump v. CASA Supreme Court decision to argue that the injunction's scope is too broad, currently applying to millions of developers worldwide when it should be limited to Epic Games [1]. Apple contends that allowing courts to define compliance based on "spirit" leaves room for abuse [1].

History of compliance and "bad faith" findings

The legal conflict stems from a 2021 ruling where Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to allow developers to link to external payment methods [1]. While Apple complied by allowing links, it continued to charge commissions between 12% and 27% and restricted links to plain text [1]. In April 2025, Rogers ruled this behavior constituted intentional contempt and banned commissions on external links in the U.S. [1]. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this finding in December 2025, noting Apple acted with "bad faith" and that its fees had a "prohibitive effect" on competition [4]. However, the