Apple petitioned the Supreme Court to uphold the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, which would send the case back to the district court to determine what can be charged for purchases made outside the App Store. Here are the details.
A little context
Last year, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California He found Apple with contempt 2021 ruling on non-App Store purchases.
The order prohibited Apple from inserting buttons or links to alternative purchase mechanisms for developers and from contacting users about those options using contact information obtained in the app. However, the decision did not specify whether Apple would charge a commission for these foreign purchases.
From the decision:
Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any person in active concert or participation with them (“Apple”) are hereby permanently restricted and enjoined from (i) prohibiting developers from (i) their applications and their applications and other calls to action that direct customers to purchase mechanisms through metadata buttons, external links, and customer contact points and contact points (ii-iur). is obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the program.
After the ruling went into effect, Apple updated its App Store rules to allow these transfers while still charging a commission of up to 27%.
This in turn led to a contempt order, with the court arguing that by charging this fee, Apple violated the spirit of the order, even though the order itself did not mention or expressly prohibit such commissions.
After the contempt ruling, the case went to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which reversed the District Court’s zero commission rule and remanded the case to determine what commission Apple could charge.
Adding to the complexity of the case, Apple claims that this directive does not apply properly to Epic Games, but to all developers worldwide who distribute apps on the App Store’s US storefront.
Since the 2025 contempt ruling, Apple has been complying with the order, as well tries to reverse it several aspects of it. This includes a new proposal to take the case to the Supreme Court, which brings us to today.
Apple is asking the Supreme Court to stop the next phase of the Epic case
In a filing with the Supreme Court today, Apple is asking the court to uphold the Ninth Circuit’s mandate, which would send the case back to the district court to determine what commission can be charged on non-App Store purchases.
In fact, Apple argues the following:
- Since the 2021 ban doesn’t mention anything about App Store fees, the hate designation doesn’t deserve it;
- The presence of this inappropriate contempt note in the protocol unfairly affects his position in the detention process;
- The order incorrectly applies to all developers outside of Epic Games on the App Store’s US storefront;
Apple bases these arguments on previous court decisions and claims that if the case proceeds now, it will face irreparable harm, including having to sue its commission in contempt and disclose potentially sensitive business information as part of the process.
The company also argues that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling conflicts with other courts that allow contempt based on the “spirit” of the order rather than its actual text, and says there’s a reasonable chance the Supreme Court will take the case and overturn parts of the order, so the lawsuit should now be stayed.
Apple also notes that it is not asking to block the decision itself and will continue to charge commissions for purchases outside of the App Store while the case is pending, meaning Epic will not be immediately hurt by the break.
Ultimately, Apple says it is still working on filing a formal request for the Supreme Court to hear the case. But it says that if the Supreme Court does not grant the detention, it should consider this application as such request.
It’s worth checking out on Amazon
FTC: We use automatic affiliate links that generate income. More.
