Apple Must Allow External Payments While Supreme Court Weighs “Spirit” Standard
What You Need to Know
- Supreme Court agreed to hear Apple’s appeal of civil contempt ruling from Epic Games antitrust case.
- Apple charged developers 12-27% commissions on external payment links after court ordered payment option access.
- Court declined to decide whether injunction applies to all developers or only Epic Games.
- Case centers on whether companies can violate the “spirit” of court orders without explicit text violations.
The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to hear Apple’s appeal of a civil contempt ruling stemming from its antitrust battle with Epic Games, a case that will force the justices to decide whether a company can be punished for violating the “spirit” of a court order when the order’s text never explicitly prohibited the conduct.
The dispute began when Epic sued Apple in 2020 over App Store payment restrictions. A district court injunction in 2021 required Apple to allow developers to link users to external payment options. Apple complied by building exactly that, then charged developers commissions of 12% to 27% on sales generated through those outside links, compared to the 30% cut it had previously taken on in-app transactions. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in contempt in April 2025, and an appeals court largely upheld that finding in December, though it struck down a provision that would have banned Apple from charging any commission on external-link purchases. Per AppleInsider, Apple’s lawyers argue the Ninth Circuit’s “spirit of the order” contempt standard is an outlier, not shared by other federal circuits.
The Court declined to take up Apple’s second question, whether the injunction covers all U.S. developers or only Epic, which means the broader obligation stays in place while the appeal proceeds.
That narrow acceptance matters more than it might appear. By leaving the injunction’s scope intact, the Court is not offering Apple interim relief on the most commercially significant question: whether it must continue allowing external payment links without the commission structure it designed. Justice Elena Kagan already denied Apple’s request to pause the contempt ruling, so the status quo continues to press on Apple’s business while the justices deliberate. A ruling that tightens the standard for “spirit of the order” contempt findings would have implications well beyond this case, affecting how courts police compliance in any complex injunction against a major platform.
Oral arguments are expected when the Court’s new term opens in October, with a decision likely by June 2027. Apple called the legal question important enough to warrant the Court’s attention. Epic, posting on X, framed the hearing as a continuation of its fight against what it called “junk fees Apple charges on third-party payments.”
0 Comments