The United States Supreme Court has agreed to hear Apple's appeal against the contempt ruling that forced it to change its App Store linking rules, reports Reuters.
In a statement to MacRumors, Apple said the court's decision was welcome news.
This is an important question of law and we are pleased the Supreme Court will hear our case.
Apple asked the Supreme Court to review the decision back in May, and it was unclear if the request would be granted because the court previously declined to weigh in on the dispute. The 2024 denial involved the original Epic Games vs. Apple commission battle, but the case has since gotten spicier and piqued the Supreme Court's interest.
Apple largely won the Epic Games case in 2021 and wasn't found to have violated antitrust law, but Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, the judge overseeing the case, ordered Apple to relax its anti-steering rules and let developers link to alternate payment options in apps. Apple agreed, but ended up charging a 12 to 27 percent fee on link-outs instead of 15 to 30 percent. When adding in fees to payment processors, developers got more hassle with little to no discount, which resulted in few developers using the new link system.
Epic Games accused Apple of violating the judge's order, and took Apple back to court. Gonzalez Rogers agreed with Epic, and in April 2025, found Apple in contempt of court for willfully violating the 2021 injunction. She barred Apple from collecting any fees on links in the U.S. App Store, and Apple changed its App Store rules to comply.
Apple appealed, and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the contempt finding, leading Apple to further appeal to the Supreme Court.
Apple argued the contempt ruling was inappropriate because of the wording around the original order and Apple's implementation. The initial order did not bar Apple from charging fees when developers linked to third-party payment options, but both the district court and the appeals court said Apple violated the "spirit" of the injunction by charging fees that were too high. Apple said that a contempt ruling based on "spirit" instead of the word of the ruling is a "recipe for abuse." Apple is aiming to have the Supreme Court toss out the contempt decision because there was no clear and unambiguous violation.
Apple also asked the court to evaluate the scope of the injunction, which Apple said should apply only to Epic Games and not to all developers. Apple heavily leaned on Trump v. CASA, a recent ruling that said lower courts do not have the authority to issue universal injunctions to block nationwide policies.
In its request to the Supreme Court, Apple said the contempt ruling based on spirit and the order forcing it to change its policies for all developers "have combined to create an injunction that may reshape the global app marketplace." Apple's argument that the outcome of the case could lead to regulatory changes worldwide may also have swayed the court to weigh in on the case.
The Supreme Court will hear the case in its next term that begins in October after a summer break. While Apple waits for the Supreme Court decision, it will be going back to district court for fee calculations that will go into effect if the higher court does not toss out the contempt ruling and resulting anti-steering order. Apple was ordered back to district court because the appeals court found the district court's total ban on commissions went too far, and sent it back to set a reasonable fee.
Note: Due to the political or social nature of the discussion regarding this topic, the discussion thread is located in our Political News forum. All forum members and site visitors are welcome to read and follow the thread, but posting is limited to forum members with at least 100 posts.
