Apple has requested Thursday the US Supreme Court to review a decision by a lower court that condemned the iPhone maker for civil contempt over fees it charged on some purchases made by customers of its App Store from third-party suppliers.
This request to the Supreme Court marks an escalation in the legal battle that has been ongoing for years between Apple and the video game developer “Fortnite,” Epic Games, which sued Apple in 2020 to loosen its control over transactions in apps using the company’s iOS operating system, as well as its restrictions on how apps are distributed to consumers. A judge largely rejected Epic’s complaint, but in 2021 issued an injunction requiring Apple to allow developers to include links in their apps redirecting users to payment methods other than Apple’s.
Apple allowed these links but imposed new restrictions, including a 27% commission on purchases made through payment systems outside the App Store within seven days of clicking a link. Epic argued that this new 27% commission violated the previous injunction. In 2025, the judge found Apple guilty of civil contempt for violating the injunction.
Apple urged judges on Thursday to consider two legal questions. The company stated that the injunction should not apply to millions of developers since Epic is the sole plaintiff and the case is not a class action. Apple also argued that it should not be held in contempt for allegedly violating the “spirit” of an injunction that did not explicitly prohibit the behavior in question.
Apple denied any wrongdoing and claims to be complying with court orders. In a statement released on Thursday, Epic Games described Apple’s appeal to the Supreme Court against the contempt conviction as “a final move to delay the conclusion of this case and avoid opening the way to competition in payment, to the benefit of consumers.”
In December, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the US affirmed the contempt conviction but stated that Apple could present new arguments in the lower court regarding the commission it should be allowed to levy on digital goods purchased in apps distributed via the App Store but paid for using third-party payment systems. In May, the Supreme Court had rejected Apple’s request to pause the proceedings in the lower court pending its appeal.
