Newshot
Account

Epic Accuses Apple of Using 27% Commission to Evade Court Injunction; Hires Veteran Supreme Court Lawyer as Case Continues Next January

Source: IT之家 Published: Policy & Society 中文 禁令诉讼
AI summary

On Nov. 13, Epic Games filed a new legal brief with the U.S. Supreme Court asking it to reject Apple's appeal and uphold the lower court's contempt ruling, and it expanded its legal team with Mayer Brown senior lawyer 妮可 · 萨哈尔斯基 (Nicole Saharsky), who has argued 32 cases before the Supreme Court, to work alongside its longtime counsel Cravath, Swaine & Moore. The dispute centers on whether Apple complied with an anti-steering injunction; after the 2021 order required Apple to allow external links, Apple permitted them but charged commissions of up to 27% and imposed link-display restrictions, and in 2025 a California federal district court held Apple in civil contempt, a finding upheld by the Ninth Circuit while adjusting the part that barred any commission on external transactions. Epic says Apple's 27% "junk fee" and design limits effectively maintain its control over in-app transactions and evade the injunction, while Apple denies violating the order, arguing the injunction's text did not explicitly prohibit it from charging a commission.

Translation(model translation, not the source's own text)

Epic Accuses Apple of Using 27% Commission to Evade Court Order: Adds Veteran Supreme Court Lawyer, Litigation to Continue in January Next Year

IT之家 November 14 news: there has been further progress in the legal dispute between Apple and Epic Games over App Store policies.

On November 13 local time, Epic Games submitted the latest legal filing to the U.S. Supreme Court, asking it to reject Apple's previously filed appeal and uphold the lower court's civil contempt ruling against Apple.

According to a report by Reuters today, Epic has also expanded its legal team, hiring veteran lawyer 妮可 · 萨哈尔斯基 (Nicole Saharsky) from U.S. law firm Mayer Brown to help handle the upcoming Supreme Court litigation.

萨哈尔斯基 has argued 32 cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and will now handle the case together with Epic's long-time counsel Cravath, Swaine & Moore.

At the heart of the dispute is whether Apple complied with the earlier court injunction targeting its App Store anti-steering policy. Epic sued Apple in 2020, challenging its control over iOS in-app transactions and its restrictions on how apps are distributed.

In 2021, a U.S. federal district court in California ordered Apple to allow developers to include external links in their apps, directing users to complete purchases through means other than Apple's own payment system. Apple subsequently lifted restrictions on external links but still charged a commission of up to 27% and imposed restrictions on how the links could be displayed.

In 2025, the U.S. District Court for California found that Apple had violated the relevant injunction and ruled that it was in civil contempt. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently upheld the contempt finding but adjusted the part of the lower court's order that barred Apple from collecting any commission on external transactions.

In its filing today, Epic said Apple has not genuinely carried out the court's requirements, but instead continues to obstruct users from being redirected to external payment channels through new fees and design restrictions.

Epic pointed out that Apple charges a 27% commission on purchases made on external websites and makes it nearly impossible for users to complete such purchases through in-app links. Epic called the fee a "junk fee," arguing that its practical effect is to maintain Apple's control over in-app transactions.

Epic also accused Apple in the filing of planning from the very beginning to evade the court injunction and of maintaining the original anti-competitive effects through internal decisions and related restrictive measures. Epic argued that the court's earlier ruling was intended to allow developers to direct users to external payment methods, thereby giving consumers more choice, and that Apple's new policy effectively undermines that goal.

Apple denies violating the court order. Apple argues that the specific text of the earlier injunction did not explicitly prohibit it from charging a commission, so it cannot be found in contempt merely because the court later concluded that its practices went against the spirit of the injunction. Apple is represented by Gregory Garre, a former U.S. Solicitor General.

According to the case schedule published by the U.S. Supreme Court, the court plans to hear Apple's appeal against the contempt ruling on January 11, 2027. The hearing will focus on whether a court can find a party in civil contempt based on the actual purpose and spirit of an injunction. The case is numbered Apple Inc. v. Epic Games Inc. (25-1311). IT之家 will continue to follow the case.

Related Articles

  • Apple App Store New Rule: When Users Unsubscribe, Developers Can Offer "Retention Discounts"
  • Apple's Services Business Under Pressure: App Store Commissions Slip, Plans to Broaden Revenue Sources Through Third-Party AI Apps
  • Apple App Store to Introduce New Rule: Dating and AI Companion Apps Must Be Rated 18+
  • Amid Pressure to Grow Its Services Business, Apple Looks to Third-Party Apps for "New Opportunities"
  • Apple Removes 19 Apps: Pet Photo and Other Apps Found to Hide Another "Face"
  • Apple's New Subscription Mechanism: Buy Multiple App Membership Seats and Invite Friends to Use Them Together

The translation is machine-generated and individual terms may be off. Nothing is rewritten or cut; the original is authoritative.

Published by IT之家
This site only summarises and aggregates; copyright stays with the original author. Headlines and summaries follow the source — where they differ, the original wins.
Read the original ↗