Apple files Supreme Court opening brief in Epic case — fights ‘spirit’ of the injunction contempt
Apple’s merits brief in No. 25-1311 asks the Court to toss the Epic App Store contempt finding, arguing civil contempt needs clear text—not an injunction’s “spirit.” Epic’s response is due November 13.
Apple today filed its opening merits brief at the U.S. Supreme Court in Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 25-1311, asking the justices to reverse the civil contempt ruling that reshaped App Store anti-steering rules in the United States.
The filing is on the Supreme Court docket, with Apple’s brief PDF posted as of September 14, 2026. It is a different track from yesterday’s DOJ discovery stay in a separate antitrust matter.
What the Court agreed to decide
In June, the Court granted review limited to Question 1: whether a court may hold a party in civil contempt for violating an injunction’s “spirit” when the order is silent on the conduct at issue, or whether contempt must rest on an order that clearly and unambiguously forbids that precise conduct.
Discussions
No discussions yet
Be the first to start a discussion.
This is a fight over the contempt standard, not a fresh antitrust trial of Apple’s commission rates.
Apple’s argument in the brief
In the opening brief, Apple says more than a century of Supreme Court precedent requires no “fair ground of doubt” that a party violated an order giving explicit notice of banned conduct (citing cases such as Taggart).
Apple’s core claims, as laid out in the brief and summarized by 9to5Mac and MacRumors:
The original anti-steering injunction did not expressly bar commissions on link-out purchases.
Epic itself acknowledged the order did not explicitly prohibit a commission; the contempt path turned on the injunction’s “spirit.”
The Ninth Circuit’s spirit-based approach is an outlier that lets courts decide after the fact that silence still meant a ban.
Contempt’s severe remedy should stay limited to unambiguous text; courts can still clarify or modify injunctions going forward without rewriting the past via “spirit.”
Why it matters for the App Store
The contempt path is what produced today’s U.S. rules limiting Apple’s ability to collect fees on certain out-of-app purchases after developers link out. If the Supreme Court vacates or narrows the contempt finding, the practical fee and compliance picture for U.S. developers could shift again—while the underlying 2021 anti-steering injunction text would still need to be read carefully on its own terms.
