Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: Supreme Court grants partial review of Apple’s petition in Epic dispute, (Jul 6, 2026)

By WK Editorial Staff

The Court will examine the issue of under what circumstances a court may hold a party in civil contempt based on a violation of an injunction’s “spirit.”

The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to Apple on June 30, 2026, agreeing to consider its long-running dispute with Epic Games to the limited extent of Question 1 raised in Apple’s petition, which asked:

Whether a court may hold a party in civil contempt based on a violation of an injunction’s “spirit” where the injunction is silent as to the conduct upon which contempt is based, as the Ninth Circuit holds; or, instead, whether a court must ground a finding of civil contempt on the violation of an order that clearly and unambiguously proscribes the precise conduct at issue, as other circuits hold.

The second question posed in Apple’s petition, “Whether the Ninth Circuit has properly created an “antitrust” or “competition” exception to Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831 (2025), and the longstanding equitable principles on which CASA rests, or otherwise disregarded CASA’s limits,” was not granted review by the High Court (Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 25-1311 (U.S. Jun. 4, 2026)).

Petition for certiorari. On May 21, 2026, Apple filed a petition for certiorari asking the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn a Ninth Circuit decision that affirmed Apple was in civil contempt for violating a district court injunction by charging a steering commission on so-called link-out purchases. The link-out purchases involve digital goods sold through apps running on Apple’s operating system and downloaded from the App Store, but which take place outside an app through a third-party.

The disputed injunction came after a bench trial in the Epic Games suit against Apple for alleged antitrust violations implicating Apple’s App Store under Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, California’s Cartwright Act, and California Unfair Competition Law (UCL). After a bench trial, the district court enjoined Apple from prohibiting App Store developers from using buttons, links, or other means to encourage customers to buy from developers rather than Apple. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the injunction, but Apple continued to prohibit developers from using buttons, links, or other calls to action unless they paid a prohibitive 27% commission to Apple.

Apple presented two questions for high court review, framing them as “two fundamental and recurring questions concerning the limits on the equitable authority of the federal courts.”

First, Apple argued that the Circuits Courts of Appeals are split on the injunction “spirit” question, and that the Ninth Circuit’s decision is erroneous. The First, Second, Third, and Fifth Circuits require a court to find a clear and unambiguous violation of a court’s order before imposing a civil contempt sanction. In contrast, the Ninth Circuit permits a civil contempt finding when a court believes that a party has violated the “spirit” of a court order, even where the order is silent as to the conduct upon the contempt allegation is based.

Apples argued that the Ninth Circuit’s “spirit” rule is in opposition to the standing rule of law that a contempt sanction is a severe remedy that not only subjects a litigant to opprobrium but can also carry severe monetary or other sanctions. Further, the Ninth Circuit’s “spirit” rule conflicts with Federal Rule 65, which requires that an injunction must specifically describe in reasonable detail the acts to be restrained.

Second, respecting the second question presented for review that the High Court did not take up, the petition contended that the Ninth Circuit’s universal injunction ruling violates the rule of Trump v. CASA (“CASA”). The Ninth Circuit’s ruling is in opposition to CASA’s ruling with respect to nonparties, in that the Ninth Circuit’s injunction extended beyond Epic—the only plaintiff in this case—to all developers, of which there are literally millions. The injunction, in opposition to the holding in CASA, gave Epic class-wide relief to the broadest possible class—all registered worldwide developers with apps on the App Store’s U.S. storefront. Apple also argued that the Ninth Circuit’s ruling made matters worse by entrenching, and expanding, a newly created “antitrust exception” to CASA.

Epic opposition. Epic, in its opposition brief to the petition for certiorari, argued that Apple’s “Spirit of the Injunction” question does not warrant review. The question of the “spirit” of the injunction did not even arise in this case, and even if it had, the Supreme Court has previously denied certiorari on it. Moreover, the answer would make no difference to the outcome.

The Ninth Circuit did not hold Apple in contempt on the theory that the text of the injunction allowed Apple’s commission while the spirit of the injunction prohibited it. The Ninth Circuit instead found the 27% Apple commission violated the express terms of the district court order because it was large enough to dissuade all developers from offering linked-out transaction. The effect of the commission was prohibited. The injunction enjoined all actions that prohibit steering, without limitation.

Epic continued that insisting the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation of the text of the injunction is wrong would not warrant Supreme Court review, as a fact-dependent objection, even if the objection had merit. If Apple had somehow believed the injunction allowed it to charge a commission designed to make developer steering financially infeasible, it could have asked the district court for guidance, but it did not.

Consistent with Supreme Court decisions, the Ninth Circuit simply held that a court may properly look to the purpose of an injunction in construing its terms and thereby reject attempts to avoid liability through strict, narrow, or dubious literalism. Epic stressed that there is no circuit conflict because the court confined its contempt inquiry to the four corners of the injunction, consistent with the cases Apple cited.

On the second question, Apple’s objections to the scope of the injunction do not warrant review because the Ninth Circuit did not create any exception to CASA. According to Epic. The panel held the test was whether an injunction would offer complete relief. Applying that test, the Ninth Circuit upheld the injunction. According to Epic, the panel also explained that this case differs from CASA because it addresses antitrust injury.

Companies: Apple Inc.; Epic Games, Inc.

News: Antitrust