Apple Asks Supreme Court to Reverse Epic Contempt Ruling
Apple has filed a brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that the lower court was wrong to hold it in contempt for charging a commission on external purchases.
Apple has formally asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a contempt ruling against it in its long-running legal dispute with Epic Games. The company filed its opening merits brief, arguing that it was not clearly prohibited from charging a fee on purchases made through links it now allows in its App Store.
The core of the argument is that the original court order did not explicitly ban Apple from taking a cut of third-party transactions. By seeking this review, Apple is attempting to clarify whether a company can be punished for actions that were not specifically forbidden in the initial injunction, a standard that could have broad implications for how court orders are enforced in the tech industry.
The original dispute centered on payment links
In the original lawsuit, a court ruled that Apple’s ban on developers directing users to outside payment methods violated California’s Unfair Competition Law. As a result, Apple was required to allow apps to include links that let customers buy things through other services. However, Apple began charging a commission of up to 27% on these external purchases, a move it claimed was permitted because the injunction did not explicitly forbid it.
Apple argues the court order was ambiguous
According to 9to5Mac, Apple’s brief states that a party cannot be held in contempt unless the court order leaves no reasonable doubt about what is prohibited. The company points out that when it submitted its compliance plan, the district court raised no immediate objections. Apple contends that the lower court’s decision to punish it for violating the spirit of the order, rather than its explicit terms, sets a dangerous precedent that allows judges to retroactively define prohibitions.
The trade-off involves legal certainty
If the Supreme Court agrees with Apple, it would reinforce the principle that companies must be given clear, written notice before they can be penalized for non-compliance. This would protect businesses from unpredictable legal risks where courts interpret the intent of an order rather than its literal text. For developers, this could mean a more stable environment for implementing external payment options, as they would not face the threat of retroactive contempt charges based on vague interpretations of existing rulings.
