The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up Apple’s challenge to a contempt ruling that stripped the company of its ability to collect fees when iPhone app developers link users to outside payment websites.
The court’s decision to hear the case, announced on June 30, sets up a review that could determine how much control Apple retains over money flowing through the App Store.
For anyone who buys apps, subscribes to services through their iPhone, or pays for in-app purchases, the outcome matters.
A ruling in Apple’s favor could allow the company to resume charging developers for purchases made outside the App Store, reducing the financial pressure on developers to offer lower prices directly to consumers.
A ruling against Apple would lock in a structure where those outside payment links remain commission-free in the United States.
How Apple Ended Up in Contempt
The legal fight with Epic Games began in 2021. Apple won the antitrust portion of that case, but Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered the company to allow developers to include links in their apps that point users to payment options outside Apple’s system.
Apple complied but structured its response to charge developers a 12 to 27 percent commission on purchases completed through those external links, compared to the standard 15 to 30 percent taken on in-app purchases.
After payment processor fees were factored in, developers saw little to no actual savings from using the new link option.
Epic returned to court, arguing Apple had violated the judge’s order. In April 2025, Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in contempt, ruling that the fees effectively undermined the purpose of the 2021 injunction.
She then barred Apple from collecting any commission on external payment links in the U.S. App Store entirely. Apple changed its rules to comply while pursuing an appeal.
What Apple Is Arguing
Apple’s core argument before the Supreme Court is that a company cannot be held in contempt for violating the “spirit” of a court order when that order never explicitly prohibited the conduct in question.
The original 2021 injunction did not forbid Apple from charging fees on external link purchases. Apple contends that basing a contempt finding on an unstated interpretation of intent rather than the written text of a ruling creates an unworkable legal standard.
The Ninth Circuit disagreed and upheld the contempt finding, prompting Apple’s request to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court agreed to consider that specific question. It did not agree to accept Apple’s separate argument that the injunction should have applied only to Epic Games, rather than to all App Store developers nationwide.
What Happens While the Case Is Pending
The case is scheduled for the court’s term beginning in October. In the meantime, Apple is returning to district court for a separate proceeding.
Because the appeals court found that a complete ban on commissions went further than the law required, it sent the fee question back to Gonzalez Rogers to determine what a permissible commission rate would look like.
Those calculations will apply if the Supreme Court ultimately does not overturn the contempt ruling.
Apple told Reuters the court’s decision to hear the case was welcome, saying it presents “an important question of law.”
The company argues that basing contempt rulings on what a court intended—rather than what its order actually says—gives courts too much power.
This practice could allow them to force sweeping regulatory changes that were never specified in writing, even affecting app stores outside the U.S.
