Apple has escalated its long-running clash with Epic Games to the highest court in the country, filing its opening merits brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in a bid to overturn the contempt ruling that upended its App Store rules. The company wants the justices to reverse or vacate the order, a move that would restore the App Store to the terms it operated under before 2025.

How the dispute reached the Supreme Court

The fight traces back to the antitrust case Epic Games launched against Apple in 2020. Apple largely prevailed, as the court did not find it in violation of antitrust law. However, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered the company to loosen its anti-steering rules and permit developers to link to outside purchase options within their apps.

Apple complied but attached a commission of 12 to 27 percent on those link-out transactions. Few developers took up the option. Epic returned to Gonzalez Rogers, arguing Apple had flouted her injunction. She agreed, and in April 2025 held Apple in contempt of court, barring it from collecting any fees on purchases made through external links in the U.S. App Store.

Apple updated its rules to comply while appealing the decision. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the contempt finding, prompting Apple to take the matter to the Supreme Court.

Apple's central legal argument

The brief filed by Apple restates its core position: it asks the justices to decide whether a court can hold a party in civil contempt for violating the "spirit" of an injunction when the injunction itself does not address the conduct in question.

Apple stresses that the original order from Gonzalez Rogers said nothing about what fees the company could or could not charge. Despite that, both the contempt ruling and the appeals court concluded Apple had breached the spirit of the injunction by setting fees deemed too high. Citing precedent stretching back to 1885, Apple contends the Ninth Circuit departed from established law. It maintains that it cannot be held in contempt absent a clear and unambiguous violation of the injunction's wording, repeatedly noting that the original order ran to just 75 words.

What happens next

The Supreme Court is expected to hear the case in 2027. Epic Games is due to file its response brief in November, after which Apple can submit a reply.

In the meantime, Apple faces a parallel process in district court over how any fees would be calculated should the Supreme Court decline to throw out the contempt ruling and the resulting anti-steering order. The appeals court found that the district court's outright ban on commissions went too far and sent the matter back for a reasonable fee to be determined. Apple sought to delay those proceedings but was unsuccessful.

The outcome carries significant stakes for developers and the wider app economy. A ruling in Apple's favor could reinstate its commission on external links, while a defeat would cement rules that let developers steer users to cheaper payment options without paying Apple a cut.