// 9TO5MAC — MOBILE & WEB
U.S. government urges Supreme Court to reverse Apple contempt ruling over App Store commission
Several legal and business groups, in addition to the U.S. government, filed briefs with the Supreme Court this week in the Apple vs. Epic Games lawsuit, urging the justices to reverse at least part of the contempt ruling against Apple. Here are the details.
In late June, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Apple’s argument that a civil contempt ruling against the company should be reversed in its fight against Epic Games.
In essence, when Apple was compelled to allow developers to direct users to external purchasing options, the company did so while imposing a 27% commission on those transactions. When Epic challenged Apple’s implementation, the district court found the company in civil contempt.
Apple has been allowing developers to link to external purchasing options without charging a commission ever since.
Since then, the company has been trying to reverse that ruling, arguing that the actual text of the injunction did not prohibit it from charging a commission, and that lower courts improperly relied on the “spirit of the injunction” to find the company in contempt.
Apple Inc. and its officers, agents, servants, employees, and any person in active concert or participation with them (“Apple”), are hereby permanently restrained and enjoined from prohibiting developers from (i) including in their apps and their metadata buttons, external links, or other calls to action that direct customers to purchasing mechanisms, in addition to In-App Purchasing and (ii) communicating with customers through points of contact obtained voluntarily from customers through account registration within the app.
Last week, Apple filed its official opening merits brief with the Supreme Court, arguing once again that the contempt ruling should be overturned because the original injunction did not clearly prohibit the company from charging a commission on purchases made outside the App Store.
In its briefing, Apple also argued that allowing the contempt finding to stand would increase the risk of judicial overreach when courts enforce injunctions, leaving companies uncertain about what conduct an order actually prohibits.
While Epic Games has until November 13 to file its response, the court this week received a number of amicus briefs (filings from outside interested parties) from the U.S. Department of Justice, through the Solicitor General’s office, along with several legal and business groups weighing in on Apple’s challenge.
In its amicus brief, the Department of Justice argues that “[c]ivil contempt is […] appropriate only if the defendant’s conduct is clearly covered by the injunction’s express terms,” which it says was not the case with Apple’s decision to charge a 27% commission.