Apple asks – Apple is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to step into its antitrust fight with Epic, challenging how a nationwide anti-steering injunction was enforced and what Apple says was an incorrect finding of contempt over the “spirit” rather than the “letter” of the law
The fight between Apple and Epic has not cooled down—it has sharpened.
Even as the case heads back through lower courts, Apple has asked the Supreme Court to review two specific issues tied to the enforcement of an injunction that required it to allow developers to link externally without commission.
In a Supreme Court filing viewed by AppleInsider. Apple argues that the reach of the anti-steering injunction went beyond what the District Court set under CASA. Apple also claims the finding that it violated the injunction was issued in error because the court treated what it calls the “spirit” of the law as enough. rather than requiring a violation of the law’s “letter.”.
Apple’s petition. a 34-page filing. asks the Supreme Court to take up the matter because it says the case is a “perfect vehicle” to address both disputes. Apple argues that a decision would settle the issues for future cases. and that if the questions are left unresolved. the CASA verdict could effectively become a dead letter.
While Apple waits for the Supreme Court to act, it says it will continue its proceedings with Epic in the lower courts.
The legal battle began in 2020, when Epic sued Apple on antitrust grounds. Epic lost on every count except one—its challenge to Apple’s anti-steering practices.
After losing that fight in part. Apple removed the anti-steering provisions and introduced a new. if complicated. way for developers to link customers to external purchase options. But the change kept a commission attached to those external links: developers would still owe Apple a commission—12% or 27%—even if they directed customers to the web.
Epic did not bring a class action, yet the injunction was applied to all developers based in the United States.
Apple planned to appeal that universal application from the outset. but the situation became more tangled after Epic filed a complaint. That led to Apple being found in contempt. Apple’s argument is that the original injunction did not mention anything about commissions. and that the contempt ruling treated compliance in terms of “spirit” rather than the actual wording.
As appeals and arguments continued, Apple was told it owed a commission even on external links. Apple then faced a difficult procedural problem: to resolve the commission rate issue with Epic, it would have to go back to court and decide what the rate should be.
That procedural knot is what brought the dispute to the Supreme Court.
Apple also points to how the Supreme Court has already ruled on jurisdiction in CASA-related circumstances. The Supreme Court. Apple says. determined that lower courts were exceeding their jurisdiction by applying injunctions outside the scope of a case. But Apple’s filing notes that the 9th Circuit has argued that an antitrust exception to CASA would allow the decision in Apple’s case to stand.
Apple contends that this approach bypasses the Supreme Court’s ruling and authority. It warns that leaving that path intact would render the CASA ruling a dead letter.
Apple’s second dispute goes to enforcement standards. It argues that civil contempt is handled differently across circuits: in other Circuit Courts, it says civil contempt is applied only when the letter of the law is violated, not the spirit.
At the center of Apple’s petition is the question of what happens if those enforcement issues are resolved in its favor.
If Apple succeeds on the “spirit” portion of its arguments, Apple argues it can continue with the previously set 12% and 27% commission rates for external linking. It also says proceedings in the lower courts would move back to earlier stages.
If the injunction’s universal. across-the-board nature is struck down. Apple says only Epic would be affected by its move away from anti-steering practices rather than all developers in the United States. Apple describes that outcome as a complete failure of a case that has already cost Epic more than a billion dollars.
Apple has asked that its petition be considered during the Supreme Court’s June 25 conference.
The case has already traveled a strange arc—from Epic’s “1984” parody ad featuring an apple wearing sunglasses. to a lawsuit that could now end up shaping what courts can do when they issue and enforce injunctions. Epic may be celebrating earlier milestones. but the next moment in the story will hinge on whether the Supreme Court decides to take Apple’s concerns seriously—before the lower courts move further.
Apple Epic Games Supreme Court antitrust injunction CASA anti-steering developer commissions contempt June 25 conference