Apple has responded to Epic’s opposition to its request to pause lower-court proceedings over App Store commissions while the Supreme Court reviews part of the case. Here’s what that means.
Apple argues Epic’s reasoning is wrong
Last month, the Supreme Court agreed to review whether Apple was properly held in civil contempt for charging a commission on purchases completed outside the U.S. App Store.
This specific dispute stems from a 2021 injunction requiring Apple to let developers direct users to off-App Store purchase options. Although the injunction did not explicitly prohibit commissions on those transactions, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers later ruled that Apple’s implementation violated the order and held the company in contempt. Apple has been fighting that finding ever since.
As soon as the Supreme Court agreed to review the finding, Apple moved to pause the lower-court proceedings that will consider what commission, if any, it can charge on such purchases.
Apple argues that the Supreme Court’s decision could eliminate the need for those proceedings or significantly reshape them, so it wants the lower court to wait, rather than move forward with work that may later need to be revisited.
Epic sees it differently. As we covered yesterday, the company argues that this request to stay the lower-court proceedings while the Supreme Court reviews the civil contempt finding is “Apple’s third attempt to delay the inevitable: a hearing to evaluate Apple’s proposed fee on steered transactions.”
In its opposition to Apple’s request, the Fortnite maker also said that “[e]ven if the Supreme Court agrees with Apple’s arguments [regarding contempt], there would still be further proceedings on remand, particularly on the question of commission, and those proceedings are likely to look similar, if not the same, regardless of” whether the Supreme Court reviews the contempt ruling.
Now, Apple has responded to Epic’s opposition, repeatedly arguing that its claims rest on incorrect assumptions, mischaracterize the scope of the Supreme Court’s review, and understate the impact that review could have on the lower-court proceedings:
And
And
And
In essence, Apple’s response to Epic’s opposition doubles down on its original points, while at the same time poking holes in Epic’s reasoning as to why the lower court should deny Apple’s request to pause the case while the Supreme Court reviews the civil contempt finding.
Apple also points out twice that, in its view, the Supreme Court will determine whether “the Ninth Circuit applied the wrong legal standard,” which it says could invalidate the contempt finding or require the appeals court to reconsider it under the correct standard.
Finally, Apple asks that, if Judge Gonzalez Rogers denies the stay, she pause the proceedings anyway so the company can ask the Ninth Circuit or Supreme Court to keep them on hold while the Supreme Court separately reviews the underlying contempt ruling.
You can read Apple’s response below:
Do you think the case should be paused while the Supreme Court reviews the contempt ruling? Let us know in the comments.
