U.S. Supreme Court Denies Apple's Bid to Delay Contempt Order, Escalating Legal Battle with Epic

Deep News03:41

The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected an emergency request from Apple Inc. to delay the enforcement of a lower court's ruling that found the company in contempt of court related to the Epic Games antitrust lawsuit.

Justice Elena Kagan issued the decision on behalf of the court, declining to refer Apple's application for consideration by the full panel of justices. This ruling requires Apple to return to the district court in Oakland, California, for further proceedings to determine the legally permissible commission rate the company can charge on transactions completed through external links.

Epic Games initially sued Apple in 2020, alleging that its App Store policies violated antitrust laws. While Apple was largely successful in that lawsuit, the court issued an injunction in 2021 mandating that Apple allow developers to include links within their applications directing users to alternative, non-Apple payment systems. Apple subsequently implemented new restrictions, including charging a commission of up to 27% on purchases made through external payment systems. Epic Games contended that this new 27% commission structure defied the prior court order. In 2025, a federal judge found Apple in contempt of court, a decision later upheld by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Epic Games informed the court that Apple's "deliberate defiance has successfully delayed the restoration of competition for over two years, allowing it to extract billions of dollars." Apple, however, argued that it was merely seeking reasonable compensation for its intellectual property and the services it provides.

In April of this year, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned a ruling that had permitted Apple to maintain its commission fee model while appealing to the Supreme Court. Consequently, Apple is currently not collecting commissions on transactions completed via external links. Neither Apple nor Epic Games provided immediate comments regarding the Supreme Court's decision.

Disclaimer: Investing carries risk. This is not financial advice. The above content should not be regarded as an offer, recommendation, or solicitation on acquiring or disposing of any financial products, any associated discussions, comments, or posts by author or other users should not be considered as such either. It is solely for general information purpose only, which does not consider your own investment objectives, financial situations or needs. TTM assumes no responsibility or warranty for the accuracy and completeness of the information, investors should do their own research and may seek professional advice before investing.

Comments

We need your insight to fill this gap
Leave a comment