← All stories
● Covered by 1 source · 1 reportMedium impact1 neutral

U.S. Government Urges Supreme Court to Reverse Apple Contempt Ruling in Epic Games Lawsuit

🔄 Updated 1d ago
New to BrevFeed? We gather this story from every outlet covering it into one summary — ranked by real-world impact, not just the latest headline — so you never miss what matters. What is BrevFeed? →

Key points

  • U.S. government filed a brief with the Supreme Court.
  • Brief urges reversal of Apple's civil contempt ruling.
  • Contempt ruling stemmed from a 27% commission on external purchases.
  • Apple argues the original injunction did not prohibit the commission.

Supreme Court Review of Apple Contempt Ruling

The U.S. Supreme Court is reviewing a civil contempt ruling against Apple in its ongoing legal dispute with Epic Games. This week, the U.S. government, through the Solicitor General’s office, along with several legal and business groups, submitted amicus briefs urging the Supreme Court to reverse at least part of this ruling.

Background of the Contempt Finding

The contempt finding originated when Apple, after being compelled to allow developers to direct users to external purchasing mechanisms, implemented a 27% commission on these transactions. Epic Games challenged this implementation, leading the district court to find Apple in civil contempt. Following this, Apple ceased charging the commission on external links.

Apple's Argument for Reversal

Apple is seeking to overturn the contempt ruling, arguing that the original injunction did not explicitly prohibit charging a commission on purchases made outside the App Store. The company contends that lower courts improperly relied on the "spirit of the injunction" rather than its literal text. Apple's brief also suggests that upholding the contempt finding could lead to judicial overreach and uncertainty for companies regarding injunction compliance.

The Original Injunction Text

The original court order permanently restrained and enjoined Apple from prohibiting developers from including buttons, external links, or other calls to action in their apps and metadata that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms in addition to In-App Purchasing, and from communicating with customers through voluntarily obtained contact points within the app.

✨ This summary was generated by AI from the outlets' reporting listed below. It is not independently verified and may contain errors — check the original sources. How BrevFeed works →

The daily brief

One email each morning: the day's tech stories, clustered across outlets and summarized. No account needed.

One email a day. Unsubscribe in one click, any time.

Today's brief

Spend a few minutes, get the whole day. Every topic's top stories in one hands-free rundown — listen, watch, or read the transcript.

~26 min · 21 stories · Sep 23

▶ Play today's brief Listen on Spotify

New every morning, and the back catalogue is archived by date.

Reporting from

The U.S. government and several legal groups filed briefs with the Supreme Court, asking it to reverse a civil contempt ruling against Apple in the Epic Games lawsuit. Apple was found in contempt for charging a 27% commission on external purchasing options, despite an injunction to allow developers to direct users to these options.