Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc. (25-1311)
- Term
- OT 2026
- Certiorari granted
- 2026-06-30
- Court below
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- Argument
- Not yet scheduled
The case in brief
Facts
Epic Games, a major game developer, sued Apple in 2020 over its App Store rules, including an "anti-steering" rule that barred apps from pointing users to ways of paying other than Apple's own in-app payment system. After a trial, the district court rejected Epic's federal antitrust claims but found that the anti-steering rule broke California's Unfair Competition Law, and it ordered Apple to stop enforcing the rule for all developers on the U.S. App Store. Apple then let developers link to outside payment options but charged a commission of 12% to 27% on purchases made through those links. Epic asked the court to enforce its order, and the district court held Apple in civil contempt (a penalty for disobeying a court order) and banned any commission on purchases made outside an app. The Ninth Circuit agreed that Apple was in contempt, including because Apple violated the order's "spirit," but it struck down the total ban on commissions, and Apple then asked the Supreme Court to review the case.
Question
Can a court hold a party in civil contempt for violating the "spirit" of a court order when the order says nothing about the conduct in question, or must the order clearly and specifically forbid that exact conduct?
Question Presented
Whether a court may hold a party in civil contempt based on a violation of an injunction's "spirit" where the injunction is silent as to the conduct upon which contempt is based, as the Ninth Circuit holds; or, instead, whether a court must ground a finding of civil contempt on the violation of an order that clearly and unambiguously proscribes the precise conduct at issue, as other circuits hold.
Scope of review: Review granted limited to Question 1 of the petition. The petition's second question — whether the Ninth Circuit created an antitrust exception to Trump v. CASA, Inc. — is not before the Court.
Our probability estimate is published after oral argument.
How the case got here
Epic Games sued Apple in 2020 in the Northern District of California, alleging that Apple's App Store distribution and in-app payment requirements violated federal antitrust law and California's Unfair Competition Law (UCL). After a bench trial, the district court rejected the federal antitrust claims but held that Apple's anti-steering provision violated the UCL and entered a permanent injunction covering all developers on the U.S. storefront; the Ninth Circuit affirmed in relevant part. After Apple adopted a commission on link-out purchases, Epic moved to enforce the injunction, and the district court held Apple in civil contempt and barred any commission on purchases made outside an app. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the contempt finding, including on the ground that Apple violated the injunction's 'spirit', reversed the zero-commission rule, remanded for a commission to be set, and upheld the injunction's universal scope; Apple, which contends that contempt requires a violation of an order's clear text and that the injunction's scope conflicts with Trump v. CASA, then petitioned for certiorari.
- 2020 — United States District Court for the Northern District of California: Complaint filed by Epic Games alleging Apple's distribution and IAP requirements violated federal antitrust law and California's UCL
- 2021-09-10 — United States District Court for the Northern District of California: Decision after bench trial; permanent injunction entered barring Apple from prohibiting developers from including buttons, external links, or other calls to action directing customers to other purchasing mechanisms (559 F. Supp. 3d 898). Apple prevailed on federal antitrust claims; Epic prevailed on UCL claim against anti-steering provision
- 2021-12-08 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Injunction stayed pending appeal on cross-appeals by both parties (2021 WL 6755197)
- 2023 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Panel affirmed in relevant part (67 F.4th 946). District court judgment affirmed in relevant part
- 2024-01-16 — United States District Court for the Northern District of California: Apple filed notice of compliance with UCL injunction, implementing a 12-27% commission on link-out purchases
- Date not stated — United States District Court for the Northern District of California: Epic moved to enforce the injunction through a finding of civil contempt
- Date not stated — United States District Court for the Northern District of California: Six-day evidentiary hearing on Apple's compliance with the injunction
- Date not stated — United States District Court for the Northern District of California: Order holding Apple in civil contempt and permanently barring Apple from imposing any commission or fee on purchases made outside an app (781 F. Supp. 3d 943). Epic prevailed
- 2025-12-11 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Panel affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded: upheld contempt finding (including 'spirit' of injunction) and bad-faith findings, reversed zero-commission rule, remanded to set commission, and affirmed universal scope of injunction (161 F.4th 1162). Mixed; contempt finding and injunction scope upheld, zero-commission rule reversed
- 2026-03-30 — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Apple's petition for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc denied. Denied
- Date not stated — United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit: Mandate stayed, then stay order reversed
- 2026-05-21 — Supreme Court of the United States: Petition for certiorari filed
- 2026-06-04 — Supreme Court of the United States: Brief in opposition filed
- 2026-06-30 — Supreme Court of the United States: Certiorari granted
- 2026-08-12 — Supreme Court of the United States: Application for a stay filed (No. 26A194), submitted to Justice Kagan
- 2026-08-13 — Supreme Court of the United States: Application (No. 26A194) denied by Justice Kagan
- 2026-11-02 — Supreme Court of the United States: Set for argument on Monday, January 11, 2027.
In the news
Supreme Court docket · All tracked cases
This static summary is shown when JavaScript is disabled. The full interactive analysis loads above.