Apple asks for contempt order review in Epic Games lawsuit

Apple also contends it cannot be held in contempt for allegedly violating the “spirit” of an injunction that did not explicitly prohibit the conduct in question

Apple asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday to review a lower court ruling ​that held the iPhone maker in civil contempt over fees it was charging ‌on some outside purchases made by customers of its App Store.

The petition to the Supreme Court escalates a years-long legal battle with “Fortnite” video game maker Epic Games, which sued Apple in 2020 seeking to loosen ​its control over transactions in applications that use the company’s iOS operating system and ​its restrictions on how apps are distributed to consumers.

A judge mostly dismissed ⁠Epic’s lawsuit but issued an injunction in 2021 requiring Apple to let developers include links in ​their apps directing users to non-Apple payment methods.

Apple allowed the links but adopted new restrictions, ​including a 27% commission on developers for purchases made on payment systems outside the App Store within seven days of clicking a link.

Epic argued that the new 27% commission flouted the earlier injunction. In 2025, ​the judge found Apple in civil contempt for violating the injunction.

Apple urged the justices on Thursday ​to take up two legal issues. It said the injunction should not apply to millions of developers, since ‌Epic ⁠is the only plaintiff and the case is not a class action. Apple also contends it cannot be held in contempt for allegedly violating the “spirit” of an injunction that did not explicitly prohibit the conduct in question.

Apple has denied any wrongdoing and says it is complying ​with court orders.

Epic Games ​in a statement on ⁠Thursday called Apple’s Supreme Court challenge to the contempt order “one last Hail Mary to delay a conclusion to this case and avoid opening ​up the gates to payment competition for the benefit of consumers.”

The ​9th U.S. ⁠Circuit Court of Appeals in December upheld the contempt finding but said Apple could make new arguments in the trial court about what commission it should be allowed to charge for digital goods ⁠bought in ​apps distributed through the App Store but paid for ​using third-party payment systems.