Epic asks Supreme Court to uphold contempt ruling against Apple

Epic files its Supreme Court response

Epic Games has officially answered Apple's appeal at the US Supreme Court, asking the justices to leave a contempt ruling against Apple in place. According to 9to5Mac, the filing was submitted on 13 November 2026 and centres on the App Store rules that stop developers from pointing users to cheaper payment options outside Apple's store.

In its filing, Epic argues that Apple is trying to escape the contempt finding by pushing a legal test that would make court orders almost impossible to enforce. Epic says Apple wants judges to find contempt only when an injunction names the exact practice being challenged.

Epic's response states that Apple attempts to avoid contempt by proposing an extreme legal standard. Under that approach, Epic argues, a company could simply replace a banned practice with a new one that produces the same result, turning injunctions into what Epic calls a never-ending game of whack-a-mole.

How the dispute began

The two companies have been fighting in court since 2020. That year, Epic sued Apple after Fortnite was pulled from the App Store. The removal followed Epic's decision to switch on its own payment system inside the game, which let players pay Epic directly and cut Apple out of its commission.

The trial court mostly ruled in Apple's favour, but with one important exception. The judge ordered Apple to stop blocking developers from telling customers about other ways to pay, a practice known as steering.

Epic later accused Apple of dodging that order. The court agreed, finding that Apple had broken the original injunction and holding the company in civil contempt, a formal finding that someone has disobeyed a court order.

The two sides of the argument

Apple has tried several times to undo the contempt ruling. Its core claim is that the original injunction did not explicitly forbid new restrictions, only the ones that existed when the order was written.

In May, Apple took the fight to the Supreme Court, and the justices agreed in June to hear the case. Apple filed its main brief in September, and the US government along with several legal and business groups submitted briefs backing Apple's position.

In that brief, Apple cites a range of earlier rulings to argue that courts must apply the exact wording of an injunction, not its broader intent. Epic rejects this reading and says Apple deliberately designed new rules to reach the same outcome the court had already banned.

What happens next

Epic is asking the Supreme Court to confirm the contempt ruling. As an alternative, it says the justices could set out a clearer legal standard for contempt and return the case to lower courts to apply it.

Apple now has until 14 December to file its final brief. Oral arguments are scheduled for 11 January 2027.

The outcome will shape how strictly courts can enforce injunctions against large companies, and it will also decide whether iPhone users in the United States can keep being pointed towards payment options outside the App Store.