Apple today formalized its challenge to the contempt ruling in its long-running legal battle with Epic Games, filing its opening merits brief with the U.S. Supreme Court. Here are the details.
A bit of context
As 9to5Mac readers know, the Supreme Court recently accepted Apple’s request to review a contempt ruling in the lawsuit Epic Games brought against the company in 2020.
In a nutshell, although Apple came out on top on most of Epic Games’ claims in the original lawsuit, it lost on one key point, with the court finding that Apple’s anti-steering rules violated California’s Unfair Competition Law.
As a result, the court issued a permanent injunction requiring Apple to allow developers to include links and other calls to action that direct users to third-party payment options.
Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any person in active concert or participation with them (“Apple”), are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.
Apple changed its rules to allow those links, but imposed a commission of up to 27% on purchases made through them. When Epic challenged the company’s compliance plan, the court agreed with the Fortnite maker and held Apple in contempt for violating the injunction.
Today’s brief
In today’s brief, Apple notes that when it “filed its notice of compliance on January 16, 2024, the district court did not raise any immediate concern.”
Apple adds that Epic itself acknowledged that the injunction “did not explicitly prohibit” the company from charging a commission on purchases made outside the App Store. Still, Epic argued that the new commission and related rules violated the “spirit” of the injunction, and the district court agreed.
Since then, Apple has been trying to overturn the contempt finding, arguing that there was nothing in the original injunction that prohibited it from charging a commission. This is the ruling Apple is now asking the Supreme Court to reverse.
Today, Apple filed its official opening merits brief, laying out its case for why the contempt ruling should be overturned.
Apple argues that “civil contempt for violation of an order may not be imposed unless an order provides clear notice that the conduct at issue is proscribed,” and cites past court decisions to support its case that “a party may not be held in contempt unless an order leaves no fair ground of doubt that it prohibits the particular conduct at issue.”
When it comes to “contempt proceedings,” therefore, an order’s “terms” govern. Terminal R.R. Ass’n of St. Louis v. United States, 266 U.S. 17, 29 (1924). Only “a plain violation of the decree so read” can justify contempt. Id. And an alleged contemnor’s intent is irrelevant: ‘Since the purpose [of civil contempt] is remedial, it matters not with what intent the defendant did the prohibited act. McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 336 U.S. 187, 191 (1949); see Taggart, 587 U.S. at 561. What matters is that the order giving rise to contempt afford clear notice to the parties. Needless to say, silence is not enough. See, e.g., Perez v. Danbury Hosp., 347 F.3d 419, 425 (2d Cir. 2003) (vacating contempt order resting on conduct as to which the court order was “silent”).
Apple also takes aim at the Ninth Circuit’s broader standard, arguing that it is an outlier in allowing parties to be held in contempt for violating the “spirit” of an injunction. According to Apple, that approach lets courts decide after the fact that conduct was prohibited even when the injunction itself never clearly said so.
Apple also argues that allowing the contempt finding to stand would increase the risk of judicial overreach when courts enforce injunctions:
That approach not only fails to afford parties the explicit notice this Court’s precedents require, but it also amplifies the unique risk of abuse threatened by the contempt power. Courts have the power to modify or clarify injunctions on a going-forward basis to address new or changed circumstances, but the severe remedy of contempt is limited to situations in which a party violates the unambiguous terms of an order.
With Apple’s opening merits brief now filed, Epic has until November 13 to file its response, with Apple’s reply due December 14. The case could then be heard by the Supreme Court as early as January 2027.
You can read Apple’s full brief below:
20260914154510009_2026-09-14 No. 25-1311 Apple-Epic Merits Opening BriefDownload
Do you think the Supreme Court should overturn the contempt ruling against Apple? Let us know in the comments.
Worth checking out on Amazon
You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and <a href="https://www.youtube.com/9to5mac” rel=”nofollow noopener” target=”_blank”>subscribe to our YouTube channel
