# Apple Petitions Supreme Court Over Epic Games Contempt Finding

**Published:** 2026-05-22T00:00:00.000Z  
**Topic:** Apple  
**Sentiment:** neutral  
**Publisher:** TrendWatcher — https://www.trendwatcher.in/article/118bcf67-e78f-4e88-872f-6e9f8bdb45ec

Apple has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to review a contempt ruling regarding App Store payment rules, arguing lower courts misinterpreted an injunction.

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

## Sources
1. Ithome — [Epic 指责苹果“藐视法庭”，苹果向最高法院请求复审 - IT之家](https://www.ithome.com/0/953/687.htm)
2. I4 — [Epic Games 指控苹果藐视法庭，苹果公司迅速发布声明回应_爱思助手](https://www.i4.cn/news_detail_54120.html)
3. It007 — [产业_Epic 指责苹果“藐视法庭”，苹果向最高法院请求复审 _ IT007...](https://www.it007.com/article-331028-1.html)
4. Sepwatch — [苹果藐视法庭罪名成立，苹果税进入倒计时 - 标准必要专利观察](https://sepwatch.io/archives/1027)
5. Tephone — [Epic... |TePhone特锋手机网](https://www.tephone.com/article/16241)

---
Cite as: TrendWatcher, "Apple Petitions Supreme Court Over Epic Games Contempt Finding", https://www.trendwatcher.in/article/118bcf67-e78f-4e88-872f-6e9f8bdb45ec