Epic's Supreme Court brief says Apple's 27% link fee defied the order
Epic's November 13 brief asks the justices to uphold Apple's contempt finding, calling Apple's standard extreme.
Apple · Macfolio · 14 November 2026
Epic Games filed its main brief in Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc. on Friday, November 13, 2026, asking the US Supreme Court to uphold the civil contempt finding against Apple. The Court's docket for No. 25-1311 shows the brief submitted that day, a day after the Court requested the record from the Ninth Circuit. Oral argument remains set for Monday, January 11, 2027.
What Epic argues
The case turns on one question: whether contempt requires an injunction's text to ban the exact conduct, or whether a court can read the order in light of its context and purpose, including attempts to get around it. Epic's brief makes four main points:
- The standard from the 2019 Taggart v. Lorenzen decision is "no fair ground of doubt," judged by what a reasonable person would understand
- Every injunction carries an implicit command not to defeat it, so conduct need not be specifically listed
- Apple's 27% commission on linked-out purchases made links so expensive that no developer would offer them, and its design rules made links hard to use
- Apple's knowledge and what Epic calls a bad-faith cover-up attempt, citing the district court's findings, undercut its reading
Epic calls Apple's "four corners" approach extreme and says it would turn injunctions into "traps." If the justices clarify the standard instead of affirming, Epic asks them to send the case back to the lower courts.
What it means for developers
Nothing changes today. The current US rules that let developers link to outside payment options stay in place while the case proceeds. The brief does not decide what commission, if any, Apple may eventually charge on linked purchases; that issue is not before the Supreme Court.
This filing also does not signal how the Court will rule. It is one side's argument, and Apple can file a reply before January's hearing.
Our take: Epic is leaning on the lower courts' factual findings about Apple's intent, which are not the focus of the question the justices agreed to hear. That is a smart move. Apple's best path is still the narrow legal question, so expect its reply to stay focused on the wording of the 2021 order.
Caveats: the Court has not said when it will rule, and even an Apple win would not automatically restore its earlier link rules or fees.