Epic Games has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to turn away Apple’s latest bid to overturn parts of the companies’ long-running App Store fight, setting up another round of legal maneuvering over commissions, injunction scope, and off-App-Store payments.
Apple’s petition, and what it is trying to undo
Last month, Apple asked the Supreme Court to revisit two lower-court rulings tied to the App Store injunction in the Epic v. Apple case. One issue is the civil contempt finding that came after Apple was told in 2021 by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to let developers direct users to purchase options outside the App Store.
Apple’s response to that injunction included a 27% commission on off-App-Store transactions, plus restrictions on how developers could present buttons and links. The company also introduced what became known as a “scare screen,” designed to warn users about the risks of making purchases outside Apple’s system.
In later proceedings, Apple argued that the wording of the original injunction did not explicitly ban a commission on off-App-Store purchases. Even so, it was unable to overturn the broader civil contempt finding.
The second issue Apple raised concerns the scope of the injunction itself. Apple says applying the Epic v. Apple decision to all developers with apps in the U.S. storefront goes beyond what the U.S. Supreme Court said in Trump v. CASA, a case that emphasized injunctions should generally be tailored to give relief to the parties directly before the court rather than everyone affected by the policy.
Epic says Apple’s arguments rest on a misreading
In a petition filed today, Epic Games urged the Supreme Court to deny Apple’s request. Epic argues that Apple’s filing mischaracterizes the lower-court decisions and does not raise questions that justify review.
Epic opens with a broad dismissal of Apple’s position, writing: “Apple’s petition presents two questions, both founded on a mischaracterization of the decisions below, neither warranting review.”
On the contempt issue, Epic says Apple violated both the text and the purpose of the injunction when it imposed the 27% commission on off-App-Store purchases. That directly contradicts Apple’s view that the injunction’s text allowed the fee even if its spirit did not.
Epic argues: “Contrary to Apple’s premise, the Ninth Circuit did not hold Apple in contempt on the theory that the text of the Injunction allowed Apple’s commission, but the spirit of the injunction prohibited it. Instead, the court found that the commission violated the express terms of the district court’s order.”
Epic says Apple should have gone back to court first
Epic also argues that Apple should have sought clarification or a modification from the court before adopting the 27% fee. In support, Epic cites a prior case for the proposition that a party operating close to the line should ask the district court for guidance instead of violating an order and then claiming contempt is off the table.
As Epic puts it, a defendant can ask the court “for a modification, clarification or construction of the order.” But it cannot skip that step, violate the injunction, and then argue contempt should not apply because “the precise arrangement worked out . . . was not specifically enjoined.” Epic adds that allowing that approach would “give tremendous impetus to the program of experimentation with disobedience of the law.”
Epic’s reply to Apple’s CASA argument
Apple’s second argument is that the injunction’s reach is too broad under Trump v. CASA. Epic rejects that claim as well, saying the case is about App Store competition as a whole and that limiting relief to only the parties before the court would not provide the “complete relief” Epic seeks.
Epic cites another prior decision in which the court accepted the scope of the injunction because it was tied to Epic’s injuries as both a developer and a games distributor. Epic says the panel “rejected Apple’s challenges to the scope of the Injunction” and noted that the test is whether an injunction will offer complete relief to the plaintiffs before the court.
Epic further says the court “determined that the Injunction is consistent with CASA’s underlying principle because its ‘scope is tied to Epic’s injuries’ as a developer and games distributor, not to the other developers’ injuries.”
According to Epic, narrowing the April 30 order in the way Apple proposes “would not facilitate the competition.”
What happens next
Epic’s filing reads like a preview of the arguments it would make if the Supreme Court agrees to hear the case. Apple’s petition, similarly, looks like a roadmap for the legal team’s next phase if review is granted.
For now, the Supreme Court has not said when it will act on Apple’s petition. The expectation, however, is that the justices could decide whether to take the case before their summer break, potentially in late June or early July.
Until then, the dispute remains one of the most closely watched App Store cases in the tech industry, with major implications for how far Apple can go in controlling payments and directing users inside iPhone apps.
Source: Original report
Was this helpful?
Last Modified: July 7, 2026 at 9:36 pm
3 views
