The U.S. government has told the Supreme Court that part of the contempt ruling against Apple in its dispute with Epic Games should be reconsidered. The filing does not take Apple’s side across the board, but it argues that the lower courts used the wrong standard for determining whether Apple violated the injunction.
In a September 21 brief, the United States said civil contempt requires there to be no fair ground of doubt that an order barred the challenged conduct. The government said the lower court’s approach did not correctly apply that demanding test. Its brief was filed in Apple Inc. v. Epic Games Inc., where the Court has agreed to review a limited question about the contempt finding.
The fight stems from Apple’s response to a 2021 injunction requiring it to let developers point customers to payment options outside the App Store. Apple later imposed a commission on some purchases completed through those links. A federal district judge found Apple in civil contempt in 2025, and the Ninth Circuit largely upheld that ruling while sending the commission question back for further proceedings.
Don’t miss the best of The Mac Observer
Set us as a preferred source and our Apple reporting ranks higher in your Google Search results and Discover feed — one tap, no account changes.
What the government is asking the Court to do
The government’s position is narrower than a full endorsement of Apple. It says the Court should vacate the contempt judgment and send the case back for a proper application of the legal standard. The brief expressly says the United States takes no position on whether Apple acted in bad faith or whether any sanctions could ultimately be supported.
That distinction matters. The filing addresses how courts decide contempt, not whether Apple can continue charging a particular rate. Questions about a possible commission and the scope of the injunction remain separate issues in the long-running case.
Apple filed its merits brief on September 14. Epic’s response is due November 13 under the Supreme Court docket, so the case still has significant briefing ahead before the justices decide the appeal.
Discussion