Epic formally asks SCOTUS to uphold contempt ruling against Apple

Epic Games has submitted its official response to Apple’s Supreme Court appeal, urging the justices to uphold the contempt ruling over App Store payment restrictions. Here are the details. A bit of context As most 9to5Mac readers probably know, Apple and Epic Games have been engaged in a lengthy legal battle since 2020, when Epic sued Apple after Fortnite was removed from the App Store. The move came after Epic remotely activated an alternative payment system that bypassed Apple’s In-App Purchase system. Although the court largely sided with Apple, it did rule that the company could no longer prevent developers from directing users to alternative payment methods outside the App Store. Apple ultimately allowed those links, but imposed new restrictions, including a 27% commission on external purchases, in addition to new rules limiting how developers could display buttons and links to alternative payment methods. Epic challenged those restrictions, and the court agreed that Apple had violated the original injunction, holding the company in civil contempt. Apple has since attempted multiple times to overturn that ruling, arguing that the original injunction contained no explicit prohibition on imposing those restrictions. Epic, on the other hand, argues that Apple deliberately circumvented the court order by introducing new rules designed to achieve the same result as those originally prohibited. In May, Apple appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed in June to hear the case. Apple submitted its opening brief in September, followed by supporting briefs from the U.S. government and several legal and business groups. Those included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of Progress, and several former federal antitrust enforcers. In a nutshell, the U.S. government argued that the original injunction did not clearly prohibit Apple’s 27% commission on external purchases, but maintained that the company was correctly held in contempt for restricting how developers could display external payment buttons. Today, Epic filed its official response. Epic’s official response In its opening brief, Apple argues, citing multiple legal precedents, that courts must enforce the letter of an injunction rather than its broader spirit. According to the company, there was nothing in the original injunction explicitly prohibiting it from charging commissions on external purchases or imposing additional restrictions on payment links, so it should not be held in contempt for conduct that the court order did not clearly prohibit. In its response filed today, Epic disputes Apple’s interpretation of the injunction, arguing that the company “attempts to avoid contempt by proposing an extreme legal standard.” From the filing: [Apple] argues that a court can find contempt only if an injunction spells out the exact practice at issue–so an injunction barring Apple’s then-existing anti-steering rules left it free to implement new ones that prevent steering just as effectively. Nothing in this Court’s precedents supports that approach, which would reduce injunctions to a never-ending game of whack-a-mole. Epic argues that “Apple devised a plan to circumvent the injunction,” claiming that “Apple chose a rate of 27% for the commission, knowing that, when combined with the developers’ payment-handling costs (more than 3%), the rate for linked-out purchases would be higher than the rate for purchases using Apple’s payment system.” Epic writes: As an Apple executive admitted, every “linked-out transaction is going to be more expensive to any developer * * * than an IAP transaction at 30 percent.” Apple simultaneously commissioned a “sham” report to try to provide an economic justification for the commission; the report contained an “entirely manufactured” rationale for the 27% rate. The company also argues that “Apple tried to cover up its scheme to circumvent the injunction” by asserting privilege over more than 57,000 documents, and points to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ finding that “its Vice President of Finance ‘outright lied under oath’ when he testified about when Apple decided to impose the new commission.” Finally, Epic asks the Supreme Court to uphold the contempt ruling against Apple or, if the justices decide to clarify the legal standard for contempt, to send the case back to the lower courts for reconsideration under that standard. With Epic’s response now filed, Apple has until December 14 to submit its final brief before oral arguments take place on January 11, 2027. You can read Epic’s full document below: Worth checking out on Amazon Apple HomeView Apple TV 4K Apple Watch Series 12 AirPods Pro 3 AirTag (4 Pack) FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.