Apple Asks Supreme Court to Review Contempt Order in Epic Games Lawsuit

Apple Inc. asked the U.S. Supreme Court on May 21 to look at a lower court ruling that held the tech giant in civil contempt over fees it was charging to customers of its App Store on some outside purchases.

Apple has been involved in litigation with “Fortnite” video game maker Epic Games Inc. for years. Epic sued Apple in 2020 in an effort to lessen its control over transactions in applications based on the company’s iOS operating system and its restrictions affecting how apps get distributed to consumers.

Epic’s lawsuit was partly dismissed in September 2021 by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers of Oakland, California, who ruled Epic failed to present sufficient evidence that Apple possessed unlawful monopoly power in a specific market that she described as “digital mobile gaming transactions.”

Rogers also held that year that Apple’s rules regarding its App Store ran afoul of California competition laws, and issued an injunction requiring the company to allow developers to embed links in their apps sending users to non-Apple methods of payment.

Apple permitted the links but introduced new conditions, such as a 27 percent commission on developers for purchases completed on payment systems outside the App Store within a week of clicking on a link.

Epic argued Apple’s commission violated the injunction, and on April 30, 2025, Rogers found Apple in civil contempt.

The judge said Apple was in “willful violation” of her 2021 injunction aimed at curbing the company’s allegedly anticompetitive practices.

Apple “willfully” failed to comply with the injunction “with the express intent to create new anticompetitive barriers which would, by design and in effect, maintain a valued revenue stream; a revenue stream previously found to be anticompetitive.”

“That it thought this Court would tolerate such insubordination was a gross miscalculation. … For this Court, there is no second bite at the apple,” Rogers said.

Apple, which denies wrongdoing and says it is obeying court orders, asked the Supreme Court in its petition on May 21 to consider two issues.

The company said the injunction should not apply to millions of developers because Epic is the sole plaintiff and the litigation is not a class action. Apple also said it should not be held in contempt for supposedly violating the “spirit” of an injunction that it argues did not specifically forbid the conduct in question.

In December 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the finding of contempt, but said Apple could present new arguments at the trial court-level about what commission it should be permitted to charge for digital goods purchased in apps that are distributed through the App Store, but paid for with third-party payment systems.

On May 6, Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan denied Apple’s separate emergency application to put proceedings in the Ninth Circuit on hold while its appeal progresses. Kagan did not provide reasons for her decision.

Natalie Munoz, director of corporate communications at Epic Games, shared her views on Apple’s new petition.

“The Supreme Court has already rejected Apple’s attempt to overturn the injunction in this case,” Munoz told The Epoch Times.

“This challenge to the contempt order is 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,” she said.

“The court proceedings and Apple’s own documents made it clear that Apple intentionally designed its sham compliance with the District Court’s order to prevent competition, clearly violating the District Court’s injunction.”

The Epoch Times reached out for comment both to Apple and its attorney, Gregory Garre of Latham and Watkins in Washington. No replies were received by publication time.

It is unclear when the Supreme Court will consider Apple’s petition.

Katabella Roberts and Reuters contributed to this report.