Six years after a video game maker's payment dispute began to reshape how software reaches phones, the fight over Apple's App Store has arrived at the highest court in the land. Epic Games has asked the justices to affirm a finding that Apple defied the injunction meant to open its marketplace, while Apple insists that a company's obligations are measured by the words a court wrote rather than the purposes those words were meant to serve. The question beneath the filings is an old one in law: whether a promise can be broken by a technicality, and whether a judge may look past the letter to the
Epic Urges Supreme Court to Uphold Contempt Ruling Against Apple's 27% External-Link Commission
The answer may matter more than the 27% rate itself.
Mark
Why is a fee dispute turning into such a big Supreme Court case?
Mimi
Because the question isn't really the 27%. It's whether a court can find contempt based on an injunction's purpose, not just its exact wording.
Mark
And Apple says the wording never banned commissions.
Mimi
Right. Its lawyer, Gregory Garre, argues courts must enforce the literal text. Epic says Apple designed its fees and link rules to recreate the old restrictions.
Luke
Worth separating what's established from what's alleged. The contempt finding in 2025 and the Ninth Circuit's affirmance are on record. The "sham" report and the claim about hiding decisions behind the 57,000 privileged documents are Epic's characterizations in its brief.
Mark
What about the judge's finding on the Apple finance executive?
Mimi
The brief says Judge Gonzalez Rogers found he "blatantly lied under oath" about the timing of the commission. That's attributed to her earlier ruling, as Epic describes it.
Luke
Fair, but we only have Epic's account of it here. And the Apple executive's admission about costs being higher than a 30% in-app purchase is also quoted by Epic, not independently shown in this reporting.
Mark
Where does the government land?
Mimi
In between. It says the commission wasn't clearly barred, but Apple was properly held in contempt over how it limited external payment buttons.
Luke
And what the court will actually decide is unknown. The market-impact points about developers' costs are projections, not outcomes.
Mimi
Next markers are Apple's reply on December 14 and arguments on January 11, 2027.
O Pulso
- Epic Games calls Apple's 27% commission on external purchases a 'junk fee' that makes outside payments nearly impossible for developers to offer.
- Apple pushes back hard, arguing its injunction never explicitly banned commissions and that no court can punish it for violating a judge's spirit.
- Apple's appeal now sits before the Supreme Court, with the case docketed as 25-1311 and a final reply brief due December 14.
- Oral arguments on January 11, 2027 will test whether contempt can rest on an injunction's purpose, a ruling that could reshape app store policing worldwide.
Six years after a video game maker's payment dispute began to reshape how software reaches phones, the fight over Apple's App Store has arrived at the highest court in the land. Epic Games has asked the justices to affirm a finding that Apple defied the injunction meant to open its marketplace, while Apple insists that a company's obligations are measured by the words a court wrote rather than the purposes those words were meant to serve. The question beneath the filings is an old one in law: whether a promise can be broken by a technicality, and whether a judge may look past the letter to the intent. How the Court answers will echo far beyond one company's commission rate.
On November 13, Epic Games filed its response with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to uphold a civil contempt ruling against Apple and reject its appeal. The filing opens the last stretch of a legal battle over App Store payment rules that has run for six years, and Epic has also strengthened its team ahead of oral arguments by bringing in Nicole Saharsky, a veteran Supreme Court advocate.
The conflict began in 2020, when Epic enabled a payment option in Fortnite that bypassed Apple's in-app purchase system. Apple pulled the game from the App Store, and Epic sued. A 2021 injunction required Apple to let developers link users to outside purchases. Apple complied in form, lifting its link restrictions but charging up to 27% on purchases made through them and limiting how those links could appear.
In 2025 a federal judge found Apple had not complied and held it in civil contempt, a finding the Ninth Circuit largely upheld. Epic now argues that the commission was planned from the start to recreate the old barrier, citing an Apple executive's own admission about costs and accusing the company of hiding behind tens of thousands of privileged documents.
Apple answers that the injunction never explicitly forbade commissions, and that a court cannot punish a company for falling short of a judge's spirit. The U.S. government backs Apple in part, agreeing the commission was not clearly barred while saying the display restrictions deserved the contempt finding. The case now awaits January's arguments, and its answer may decide whether developers can count on courts to enforce the intent behind their rulings.
On November 13, Epic Games filed its response brief with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to uphold a lower court's civil contempt ruling against Apple and to reject Apple's appeal. The filing opens the final stretch of a legal fight over App Store payment rules that has run for six years.
According to Reuters, Epic also strengthened its legal team for next year's oral arguments. It hired Nicole Saharsky, a veteran attorney at Mayer Brown who has argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court. She joins Epic's long-standing team from Cravath, Swaine & Moore.
The dispute began in 2020, when Epic enabled a payment channel in Fortnite that bypassed Apple's in-app purchase system. Apple removed the game from the App Store, and Epic sued, challenging Apple's control over iOS in-app transactions and app distribution. In 2021, a federal district court in California issued an injunction requiring Apple to let developers place external links inside apps, directing users to complete purchases outside Apple's payment system. Apple lifted its restrictions on links, but it imposed a commission of up to 27% on purchases completed through them and attached several constraints on how the links could be displayed.
In 2025, the district court found that Apple had failed to comply with the injunction and held it in civil contempt. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld that finding but modified the lower court's provision barring Apple from collecting any commission on external transactions. Apple tried several times to overturn the ruling, then petitioned the Supreme Court in May of this year. The court agreed to take the case in June.
Epic's latest brief calls the 27% commission a "junk fee" and argues that it makes it nearly impossible in practice for developers to steer users to outside payment channels, which preserves Apple's control over transactions. Epic accuses Apple of planning from the start to get around the injunction, recreating the effects of its original rules through new fees and interface restrictions. It cites an earlier admission by an Apple executive that the cost of an external link transaction would be higher for any developer than an in-app purchase subject to a 30% commission. Epic also claims Apple commissioned a "sham" report to find an economic justification for the 27% rate, and says Apple asserted privilege over more than 57,000 documents to shield its decision-making. It further notes that Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers previously found that Apple's vice president of finance "blatantly lied under oath" about the timing of the new commission.
Apple denies violating the order. Its attorney, Gregory Garre, a former U.S. Solicitor General, argues that the injunction's text does not explicitly prohibit commissions, and that a court cannot hold Apple in contempt solely on a later finding that its practices run against the injunction's spirit. Apple's appeal cites multiple precedents for the position that courts should enforce an injunction's literal requirements rather than its broader intent.
The U.S. government took a middle position in a brief supporting Apple. It said the injunction did not clearly bar a 27% commission on external purchases, but that Apple was rightly held in contempt for how it restricted developers from displaying external payment buttons. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of Progress, and several former federal antitrust enforcement officials also filed briefs for Apple.
The case is docketed as Apple Inc. v. Epic Games Inc. (25-1311). Apple's final reply brief is due December 14, and oral arguments are scheduled for January 11, 2027. The central question is whether a court can hold a party in civil contempt based on the actual purpose and spirit of an injunction. The answer may matter more than the 27% rate: it could determine whether developers get clearer judicial backing to steer users elsewhere, or whether companies can adjust their rules to avoid contempt liability, with consequences for app store litigation and regulation worldwide.
Citações Notáveis
Epic calls Apple's 27% commission a "junk fee" that makes steering users to external payments nearly impossible.— Epic Games, Supreme Court response brief
The injunction's text does not explicitly prohibit commissions, and contempt cannot rest solely on its spirit.— Gregory Garre, Apple's attorney (paraphrased)
Quer a matéria completa?
Leia o original em BigGo Finance ↗