The U.S. Department of Justice has weighed in on Apple's long-running App Store battle with Epic Games, filing a friend-of-the-court brief with the Supreme Court that backs key parts of Apple's challenge to a civil contempt ruling — while declining to side with either company.
The brief, filed on September 22 by Solicitor General John Sauer, argues the justices should reverse the contempt finding tied to Apple's decision to charge a 27% commission on purchases made through external links in iPhone apps.
"Civil contempt is appropriate only if the defendant's conduct is clearly covered by the injunction's express terms," the Justice Department wrote, adding that Apple's commission fell into an area where a "fair ground of doubt" exists about what the order actually prohibited.
But the filing does not hand Apple a clean win. The department told the court that lower courts were correct to hold Apple in contempt over its so-called "plain button" restriction — a design choice that effectively let developers show links to outside payment pages but not the buttons the injunction contemplated.
The Justice Department also said remaining disputes, such as where external purchase links may appear, should be sent back to the lower courts and reconsidered under the narrower "fair ground of doubt" standard.
A six-year fight reaches its final act
The dispute began in 2020, when Epic Games deliberately broke App Store rules by offering Fortnite players a payment option that bypassed Apple's commission, leading to the game's removal from the iPhone.
A federal judge largely rejected Epic's antitrust claims but issued a short permanent injunction in 2021 requiring Apple to let developers include links and calls to action directing users to alternative purchase options.
Apple complied on paper but attached commissions of 12% to 27% on sales routed through those links. Few developers used the system, and Epic returned to court arguing the fees made the injunction meaningless.
In April 2025, the district court found Apple in civil contempt and barred it from collecting any commission on U.S. link-out purchases. The Ninth Circuit upheld the contempt finding in December 2025 but concluded that a total ban on fees went too far, sending the case back for a more tailored rate.
What the Supreme Court will decide
On June 30, the Supreme Court agreed to hear Apple's appeal, limiting review to a single question: whether a company can be held in civil contempt for violating the "spirit" of an injunction when the order itself says nothing about the conduct later deemed a violation.
Apple filed its opening brief on September 14, arguing the text of the roughly 75-word injunction never mentioned commissions. Epic's response is due November 13.
The Justice Department is not alone in filing. Amicus briefs have also arrived from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Chamber of Progress, former federal antitrust enforcers, and the International Center for Law and Economics.
Industry groups including the Computer & Communications Industry Association, NetChoice and the Software & Information Industry Association also filed.
For developers, the stakes are concrete. The current 27% external-link rate remains in effect while the appeal is pending, and a Supreme Court ruling is not expected before early 2027.
Even an Apple win on the contempt question would not erase the underlying 2021 injunction requiring external payment links — but it could determine how much freedom Apple and other platform owners have to interpret the orders that govern their stores.
