Epic files brief urging Supreme Court to uphold Apple contempt ruling ahead of January arguments
Key Facts
Epic Games filed a reply brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on November 13, 2026, asking it to uphold an appeals court decision that left in place a contempt ruling against Apple. The company said in the brief that the Supreme Court should affirm the ruling, in the latest step in a dispute over restrictions on directing app users to external payment methods. The review accepted by the court centers on the standard for proving civil contempt, not on determining what commission Apple may charge on those purchases. The court scheduled oral arguments in the case for January 11, 2027. In EL7 data, Apple shares closed at $356.27 on November 13, 2026.
Epic says contempt can be established when a reasonable person would understand, in light of an injunction’s text, context and purpose, that the conduct at issue is prohibited. Under its proposed standard, that includes attempts to circumvent the order through alternative means, even if the order does not explicitly mention those means. This is the core question the Supreme Court agreed to review: whether civil contempt can be established by violating the “spirit” of an order when its text does not address the conduct in dispute. Epic argues that reading the order in light of its purpose gives the party fair notice of what it prohibits. The company said in its brief that the court should either affirm the existing ruling or clarify the legal standard.
In describing Apple’s conduct, Epic argued that the company imposed a commission on purchases made through external links and that design restrictions made those links nearly impossible for consumers to find and use. Epic said the commission made external purchases “prohibitively expensive” and the link design made them “practically impossible” to use. It added that the restrictions were adopted to thwart purchases through the links, which the company directly connects to the purpose of the injunction. Epic says the order was intended to allow users to move from apps to related purchases. It also argues that making this route available creates room for price competition and gives consumers real choices.
The case stems from an injunction in the dispute between Epic and Apple over allowing app developers to direct users to external payment methods. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the trial court’s contempt ruling against Apple, according to the case chronology Epic provided in its brief. Separately, 9to5Mac said Apple allowed developers to direct users to external payment options in the U.S. App Store without a commission, while continuing to challenge the contempt ruling. This separates the availability of external links in the store from the legal question before the Supreme Court about whether the restrictions violated the injunction. 9to5Mac also said the question of what commission Apple may charge on external purchases is being considered separately in district court.
Epic says the U.S. government largely agrees with its legal standard and does not deny that Apple could be found in contempt for at least some of the restrictions. The company cited this in support of its position on the fair-notice standard, which ties the ruling to what a reasonable person would understand from the order’s text, context and purpose. But the brief’s main request is to uphold the existing contempt ruling, not to decide the commission rate at this stage. If the court chooses to clarify the legal standard instead of affirming the ruling directly, Epic asked it to remand the case to the lower courts to apply that standard first. The outcome of the contempt review therefore remains separate from determining any potential commission on payments through external links.
The Supreme Court docket recorded Apple’s opening brief as the petitioner on September 14, 2026. On November 12, the court requested the case record from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, before Epic filed its brief the following day. The court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on January 11, 2027. The arguments will address the civil contempt standard in light of the injunction and its context, while the question of a potential commission on external purchases remains under separate consideration in district court.