Epic Games has filed a new motion with the U.S. Supreme Court saying Apple isn’t meeting the true intent of its App Store ruling—and wants penalties despite complying with the letter of the court order. The filing argues Apple has adhered only to what the ruling explicitly requires, but intentionally avoided meeting its spirit. Oral arguments in the case are scheduled for January 11, 2027.
The Ruling and Apple’s Official Compliance
In the long-running Epic vs. Apple lawsuit, the core issue is how Apple manages its App Store rules related to “steering”—namely, preventing developers from linking to or directing users toward external purchasing mechanisms outside Apple’s in-app payment system. The 2021 anti-steering injunction mandated Apple allow buttons, external links, and other calls to action so users can pay elsewhere. Apple officially removed its anti-steering restrictions in May 2025 and submitted a notice of compliance to the court. The company also introduced a commission on these external link or “link-out” transactions, which Apple says is needed to cover infrastructure, services, and access to its platform.
Epic’s Pushback: Letter vs. Spirit of the Injunction
Despite Apple’s formal compliance—removing prohibited rules and allowing external links—Epic contends Apple violated both the letter and spirit of the injunction. In particular, Epic points to the commission Apple has imposed on transactions routed via external links. Epic says Apple set that commission so high that while developers are technically allowed to steer users to outside purchases, the financial burden makes doing so effectively nonviable. Essentially, Epic argues Apple dresses up restrictions in policy form but keeps its earnings intact by erecting cost and design barriers.
The district court originally found Apple in civil contempt in April 2025 for exactly this behavior: replacing anti-steering policies with high fees and other restrictions that undercut true developer freedom. The Ninth Circuit later upheld that contempt ruling, except for the part that had permanently banned Apple from levying any commission, which was remanded for further consideration.
Supreme Court Involvement and Legal Questions
Apple has asked the Supreme Court to overturn the contempt ruling—or at least the portions that penalize it for violations grounded in the “spirit” rather than the explicit text of the injunction. Apple argues that courts, in general, should require unambiguous violation of written orders before finding contempt—not vague intent or purpose. Epic has pushed back, saying the Ninth Circuit’s ruling found that Apple in fact ran afoul of both the letter and spirit of the injunction by imposing suppressive fees and restrictions.
Meanwhile, the lower courts are also dealing with whether Apple’s commission on external link purchases is permissible, and if so, what that fee should be. Epic has requested Apple be forced to produce internal documentation detailing how it calculated these fees, arguing that Apple has classified or narrowed the scope of these documents improperly. A deadline of November 1, 2026 has been set for production of key materials.
If the Supreme Court sides with Apple, it could substantially limit how injunction law is interpreted—potentially curbing court power to enforce intent when written orders don’t explicitly cover every possible restriction companies might impose. If Epic prevails, it would reinforce a more aggressive view of injunctions that holds parties accountable not just for explicit commands, but also for efforts to sidestep those commands through tactics that undermine their effect.
This case matters because it will help define the boundary between literal compliance with court orders and game-playing around their objectives. As regulatory scrutiny of App Stores continues globally, what emerges here could affect not just Apple, but how all tech platforms respond when asked to shift long-standing business models under court orders.
