Apple has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review two critical procedural mechanisms stemming from its long-running antitrust battle with Epic Games. The tech giant's 34-page filing directly challenges a lower court’s nationwide anti-steering injunction and a subsequent civil contempt ruling. The high court's decision to grant or deny review will establish definitive boundaries on the reach of federal injunctions in non-class-action lawsuits, as well as the evidentiary thresholds required to hold a corporation in civil contempt.
In practical terms, a Supreme Court decision limiting the scope of the injunction means the mandate requiring Apple to allow external purchase linking would apply exclusively to Epic Games, rather than all U.S. developers. Furthermore, a victory on the contempt issue would legally preserve Apple's current 12% and 27% web-linking commission rates, reverting lower court proceedings back to the appellate phase. For Epic Games, an unfavorable ruling threatens to dismantle a legal campaign that has already cost the video game developer upwards of $1 billion, according to media reports.
The crux of Apple’s appeal rests on federal jurisdictional limits and the consistency of nationwide legal standards. Apple argues that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit bypassed established precedent by applying a sweeping, nationwide remedy to a non-class-action lawsuit. The filing asserts that leaving this broad application undisturbed risks invalidating previous Supreme Court limitations on injunctive relief, turning existing precedent into a "dead letter."
Additionally, Apple is leveraging the case to resolve a circuit split regarding civil contempt. The company contends that the district court erred by finding it in contempt based on the "spirit" of the original injunction rather than its explicit text, which did not explicitly prohibit Apple from charging commissions on external web links. Because other Circuit Courts strictly limit civil contempt findings to literal violations of a court order, Apple argues this case serves as the ideal vehicle for the Supreme Court to establish a uniform national standard.
Apple has requested that its petition be considered during the Supreme Court's scheduled June 25 conference.
