The news
On September 14, 2026, Apple (AAPL) filed its opening Supreme Court brief seeking to overturn the App Store contempt ruling Epic Games won in 2025, which barred Apple from collecting fees on purchases made through links to outside websites.
The Supreme Court agreed on June 30, 2026, to hear the case, Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc. (No. 25-1311), but limited its review to one question: whether a party can be held in civil contempt for violating the spirit of an injunction that does not address the conduct at issue, or only for violating an order that clearly and unambiguously bans it.
The dispute traces back to a 2021 injunction, issued under California's Unfair Competition Law, that required Apple to let developers link users to other ways to pay, according to 9to5Mac. MacRumors reported that Apple's compliance came with fees of 12 to 27 percent on linked purchases, and that few developers used the option. In April 2025, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in contempt and barred it from collecting any fees on linked purchases in the US App Store.
According to MacRumors, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the contempt finding but concluded that barring all commissions was excessive, returning the matter to the district court to determine a reasonable fee.
In its brief, Apple argued that civil contempt requires an order giving clear notice that the conduct is prohibited, and that the Ninth Circuit's spirit-of-the-injunction standard is an outlier, 9to5Mac reported. MacRumors noted that Apple repeatedly pointed to the original injunction's length of just 75 words; the order did not explicitly prohibit commissions. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney responded on X that Apple's PR team had begun sharing "muddled talking points" with the press, and said Epic was fighting for the rights of all developers, according to 9to5Mac.
The numbers
- Apple's earlier fee on link-out purchases (MacRumors)
- 12% to 27%
- Length of the 2021 injunction, per Apple
- 75 words
- Supreme Court docket number
- 25-1311
- Epic Games' merits brief due
- November 13, 2026
Why CEOs should care
For CFOs at companies that sell digital goods or subscriptions to US iPhone users, the case puts a price on a channel many have started to use. The contempt ruling barred Apple's fees on linked purchases, the Ninth Circuit opened the door to a reasonable fee set by the district court, and Apple is asking the justices to throw out the contempt finding altogether. Model at least three cases: no Apple fee on link-outs, a court-set fee, and whatever terms follow if Apple wins, and avoid long-term pricing commitments that assume today's terms are permanent.
For product and security leaders, linking out moves checkout from Apple's payment system to your own web flow. That means your team, not Apple, owns payment security, fraud screening and refunds for those purchases. The work is worth doing only if the fee savings justify it, so tie the investment to the legal outcome and keep the in-app purchase path ready as a fallback.
For boards and general counsel, the question reaches beyond Apple. A ruling for Apple would make it harder for courts to punish companies whose compliance plans follow the letter of an order; a ruling for Epic would signal that creative compliance carries contempt risk. Any company operating under an injunction or settlement should ask counsel which reading its own compliance plan relies on.
The bigger picture
The case sits at the center of a years-long fight over App Store economics. According to 9to5Mac, Apple set out its compliance plan in January 2024 with a commission of up to 27 percent, which the district court later found violated the spirit of the injunction. Apple also tried to pause the lower-court proceedings: on August 12, 2026, it asked Justice Elena Kagan for a stay, and she denied the application on August 13 after a brief administrative stay, according to the docket and SCOTUSblog.
What happened next
Between September 16 and September 21, 2026, nine amicus briefs were filed, by our count of the docket, including from the Chamber of Commerce of the United States, the Computer & Communications Industry Association, Chamber of Progress and a group of former federal antitrust enforcers. On September 21, the United States filed a brief supporting neither party. Epic's brief is due November 13, according to the docket; 9to5Mac reported that Apple's reply is due December 14 and that argument could come as early as January 2027.
