{"id":51992,"date":"2026-05-22T16:25:14","date_gmt":"2026-05-22T20:25:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=51992"},"modified":"2026-05-22T16:25:14","modified_gmt":"2026-05-22T20:25:14","slug":"apple-asks-supreme-court-to-review-epic-ruling","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2026\/05\/22\/apple-asks-supreme-court-to-review-epic-ruling\/","title":{"rendered":"Apple Asks Supreme Court to Review Epic Ruling"},"content":{"rendered":"

Marcus Mendes<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Apple today filed a request with the Supreme Court in an attempt to reverse key lower court rulings over the App Store injunction in its long-running legal battle with Epic Games.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

In its petition, Apple is asking the Supreme Court to review two questions.<\/p>\n

The first is whether Apple should have been held in contempt for charging a commission on purchases made outside the App Store.<\/p>\n

The second is about the scope of the injunction.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Sarah Perez<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

“Epic never brought a class action and never attempted to show that enjoining Apple’s conduct against all other developers — like Microsoft or Spotify, who have nothing to do with Epic — was somehow necessary to provide relief to Epic,” reads Apple’s new petition, which asks the U.S. Supreme Court to review the lower court ruling.<\/p>\n

In the same document, Apple also argues against the Ninth Circuit’s civil contempt<\/a> order over Apple’s compliance with the injunction. The court had ruled that Apple must give developers the right to include links in their apps — links that could direct users to alternative payment options outside of Apple’s own system — if they chose to do so. Apple did permit this as required, but charged fees on those outside purchases, leading to the contempt order.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

John Gruber<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Apple’s argument here is that only the letter of the law matters, and the letter of the injunction did not say anything about charging commissions on external payments, and thus they can’t be held in contempt for violating something that was never spelled out explicitly.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Wesley Hilliard<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

If Apple wins the “in spirit” portion of its arguments, Apple gets to carry on with its previous 12% and 27% commission rates for external linking. It would also mean proceedings in the lower courts would return to appeals stages.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Juli Clover<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Epic Games and Apple agreed to an expedited schedule and Apple’s petition will be considered on June 25. Apple expects a decision on whether the Supreme Court will hear the case by the time the justices recess for the summer in late June or early July.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n