Epic Games sued Apple in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that App Store rules violated federal antitrust law and California’s Unfair Competition Law. Epic lost its federal monopolization claims but won an anti-steering injunction, and the U.S. Supreme Court is now reviewing a finding that Apple willfully violated it. Epic’s response brief is due November 13, 2026, and oral argument is set for January 11, 2027.
Latest development Nov 2, 2026
On November 2, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court set oral argument in Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 25-1311, for January 11, 2027. Epic’s response brief remains due November 13, 2026, and Apple’s reply brief is due December 14, 2026.
Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc. (25-1311) - SCOTUSblogSCOTUS sets hearing date for Apple's appeal in Epic Games caseSupreme Court Sets January Hearing For Apple And Epic Games Appeal
Why it matters
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether civil contempt may rest on violating an injunction’s “spirit.” On remand, the district court will set what commission, if any, Apple may charge on U.S. purchases that developers link to outside the App Store.
Background
Epic Games, Inc. added a direct-payment option to Fortnite in 2020, which led to the game’s removal from Apple’s App Store. On August 13, 2020, Epic sued Apple Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California under the Sherman Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law (UCL). On September 10, 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers held that Apple was not a monopolist under federal law but enjoined its anti-steering rules under the UCL. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed in April 2023, and the U.S. Supreme Court declined review in January 2024. Apple then permitted external purchase links in the United States but charged a 27% commission (12% for small developers) and imposed strict formatting rules.
On April 30, 2025, the district court held that Apple had willfully violated the injunction and criticized its link-out commission and compliance scheme. It barred Apple from taking any commission on qualifying external purchases and found that a senior Apple executive testified falsely. It also referred Apple and its finance vice president to federal prosecutors for a criminal contempt investigation. On December 11, 2025, the Ninth Circuit (No. 25-2935) affirmed the contempt finding and most of the remedial order. It vacated the permanent zero-commission bar and remanded for a purgeable sanction or a properly tailored modification.
The Supreme Court refused to stay the Ninth Circuit’s mandate on May 6, 2026. On June 30, 2026, it granted certiorari (No. 25-1311), limited to whether civil contempt may rest on violating an injunction’s “spirit.” On remand, the district court denied Apple’s motion to stay the commission-rate proceedings on August 11, 2026, and ordered Apple to propose a fee structure within 24 hours. On August 13, 2026, Justice Kagan denied Apple’s emergency application to pause the injunction’s link-out obligations pending its merits appeal. The same day, Apple proposed external-purchase commissions of 15% for standard apps, 10% for certain partner programs and subscription renewals, and 5% for Small Business Program apps.
Epic, which had 60 days to respond, objected that the fees were far outside the bounds of the Ninth Circuit’s guidance and said it would appeal any rate above 0%. Meanwhile, developers steer users to web checkout. On September 14, 2026, Apple filed its opening merits brief at the Supreme Court. Industry groups filed amicus briefs supporting Apple on September 21, 2026, and the U.S. Department of Justice filed one urging reversal the next day. On November 2, 2026, the Supreme Court set oral argument for January 11, 2027, with Epic’s response brief due November 13, 2026, and Apple’s reply due December 14, 2026.
Timeline 17 events
-
OrderSupreme Court sets January 11, 2027, argument date
The Supreme Court’s docket was updated to schedule oral argument in Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 25-1311, for January 11, 2027. Epic’s response brief is due November 13, 2026, and Apple’s reply is due December 14, 2026.
Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc. (25-1311) - SCOTUSblogSCOTUS sets hearing date for Apple's appeal in Epic Games caseSupreme Court to Hear Apple's Epic Games Contempt Appeal on Jan. 11
-
FilingJustice Department files amicus brief backing Apple at Supreme Court
The brief in No. 25-1311 urged the Supreme Court to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s ruling upholding the finding that Apple was in contempt of the district court’s anti-steering injunction.
DoJ urges SCOTUS to reverse contempt ruling over App Store commissionDOJ Partially Backs Apple In Epic High Court Contempt CaseU.S. Justice Department urges Supreme Court to tighten contempt standard in Apple–Epic Games App Store fight
-
FilingIndustry groups file amicus briefs supporting Apple
The Computer and Communications Industry Association, joined by SIIA and NetChoice, filed amicus briefs at the Supreme Court. The briefs supported Apple’s argument that contempt findings must rest on an injunction’s plain text rather than its perceived spirit.
Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc. (25-1311) | SCOTUSblogSIIA Files Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Apple v. Epic GamesCCIA Joins Supreme Court Amicus Brief in Apple v. EpicNo. 25-1311 In the Supreme Court of the United States (SIIA/CCIA Amicus Brief)
-
FilingApple files opening merits brief with U.S. Supreme Court
Apple asked the Court to reverse or vacate the Ninth Circuit’s decision affirming the civil contempt finding. It argued that civil contempt cannot rest on violating an injunction’s unstated “spirit” without clear notice of the prohibited conduct. Epic’s response brief is due November 13, 2026.
Apple asks US Supreme Court to reverse contempt finding in Epic Games fightApple files Supreme Court brief challenging contempt ruling in Epic caseApple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc. (25-1311)
-
AppealJustice Kagan denies Apple’s emergency stay application (No. 26A194)
Apple asked the Supreme Court on August 12 to pause the injunction’s link-out obligations pending its merits appeal. An administrative stay expired on August 13 and the application was denied.
-
FilingApple proposes tiered commission structure to district court
Apple proposed commissions on purchases outside the App Store of 15% for standard apps, 10% for certain partner programs and subscription renewals, and 5% for Small Business Program apps. Epic objected and said it would appeal any rate above 0%.
Apple proposes to take a 15% cut of purchases made outside the App StoreApple seeks settlement talks with Epic Games in new court filing
-
OrderDistrict court denies Apple’s motion to stay remand proceedings
The court said that the evidentiary issues on the commission rate are factual matters not before the Supreme Court. It ordered Apple to file its proposed fee structure within 24 hours and gave Epic 60 days to respond.
Apple's fight over commissions for linked-out App Store purchases continues in federal courtApple has again been denied a stay for fee calculations in its ongoing legal fight with Epic Games
-
FilingApple replies in support of stay, citing paused securities fraud case
Apple cited a newly paused, unrelated securities fraud lawsuit against it as support for pausing the Epic remand proceedings during Supreme Court review.
-
FilingEpic opposes Apple’s motion to stay remand proceedings
Epic called Apple’s request another delay tactic. It argued that the district court must still set a commission rate regardless of the outcome at the Supreme Court.
EPIC GAMES, INC.'S OPPOSITION TO STAY OF REMAND PROCEEDINGSEpic fights Apple's request to pause App Store commission proceedings
-
OrderSupreme Court sets extended merits-briefing schedule
The Court set Apple’s opening brief and joint appendix for September 14, 2026, and Epic’s response brief for November 13, 2026. Oral argument was not yet scheduled.
-
AppealSupreme Court grants certiorari (No. 25-1311)
The Court limited review to whether civil contempt may rest on violating an injunction’s “spirit.” It had refused to stay the Ninth Circuit’s mandate on May 6, 2026. Argument is expected in the October Term 2026.
-
AppealNinth Circuit affirms the contempt finding
The panel (No. 25-2935) upheld the willful-contempt finding and most of the remedial order. It vacated the permanent bar on any commission for linked-out purchases and remanded for a purgeable sanction or a properly tailored modification.
-
EnforcementDistrict court finds Apple in willful contempt of the injunction
The court barred any commission on qualifying external-link purchases and found that a senior Apple executive testified falsely. It referred Apple and its finance vice president to federal prosecutors for a criminal contempt investigation.
-
AppealSupreme Court declines review and injunction takes effect
Apple began permitting external purchase links in the United States but charged a 27% commission (12% for small developers). It also imposed strict formatting rules, a compliance scheme the court later held contemptuous.
-
AppealNinth Circuit affirms the judgment
-
JudgmentDistrict court rejects monopolization claims but enjoins anti-steering rules
The court based the injunction on California’s Unfair Competition Law.
-
FilingEpic triggers Fortnite’s removal and sues Apple
Experimental AI forecast
How it is madeHow will the U.S. Supreme Court resolve Apple’s challenge in No. 25-1311 to the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance of the civil contempt finding?
- Supreme Court reverses or vacates62%
- Supreme Court affirms contempt finding28%
- Writ dismissed as improvidently granted4%
- Epic and Apple settle3%
- Still pending on July 15, 20273%
- Resolves by
- Jul 15, 2027in 8 months
- Record confidence
- Medium
The Supreme Court is most likely to reverse or vacate the Ninth Circuit’s contempt affirmance, at 62%, with a decision expected by the end of June 2027 after the January 11, 2027, argument. The Court limited review to whether contempt may rest on an injunction’s “spirit,” and the Justice Department supports Apple.
How it resolves. Resolves on the Supreme Court’s disposition in No. 25-1311 as shown on its docket or in its opinion. “Affirms” means the judgment is affirmed in full. “Reverses or vacates” means the Ninth Circuit’s judgment is reversed or vacated in whole or in part, including vacatur and remand. “Dismissed” means the writ is dismissed as improvidently granted. “Settles” means the case is dismissed or withdrawn by the parties’ agreement before decision. If no disposition has issued by July 15, 2027, it resolves as still pending.
Reasoning
Starting point. U.S. Supreme Court merits cases decided after argument, especially narrow-question grants with U.S. government support for the petitioner: The Supreme Court reverses or vacates in roughly 70% of argued cases. Petitioners backed by the Solicitor General as amicus win somewhat more often.
The base rate for reversal or vacatur in argued Supreme Court cases is about 70%. The Court narrowed its grant to the “spirit” question, which signals interest in the legal standard rather than the factual findings. The Justice Department and industry amici urge reversal, which historically favors petitioners. Against that, the district court found willful violation and false testimony, and the Ninth Circuit’s affirmance may rest on grounds independent of any “spirit” theory. That gives the Court room to affirm or to vacate narrowly. A narrow vacatur and remand counts as reversal here and is a likely form of Apple’s win. The Court’s earlier refusals to stay the mandate and the injunction applied different standards and say little about the merits. Settlement is unlikely because Epic says it will fight any commission above 0%, and the remand rate proceedings continue in parallel. With argument set for January 11, 2027, a decision before the July 15, 2027, cutoff is very likely. Nothing in the record since the October 8, 2026, forecast moved any outcome by five points, so the numbers are unchanged.
Certiorari limited to the injunction “spirit” contempt question · Justice Department amicus brief urging reversal · High base rate of reversal in argued cases · Independent willfulness findings could support affirmance · January 11, 2027, argument makes a June decision likely
Generated automatically by Claude Opus 5.5 on Nov 5, 2026 from this case’s record on this site, and published without editorial review. The probabilities are the model’s judgment, not measured frequencies, and they are scored publicly as cases resolve. Not legal or investment advice. How the forecasts are made