In a significant development in the ongoing legal conflict between Apple and Epic Games, Justice Elena Kagan has rejected Apple’s request to pause a contempt order against the tech company. The request, part of a more extensive antitrust lawsuit initiated by Epic Games, was denied by the U.S. Supreme Court’s Elena Kagan, as she handles emergency requests from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit. This request was part of Apple’s attempt to delay proceedings related to a lower court’s civil contempt order, as noted in a single-sentence notice from the Supreme Court’s Public Information Office.
The roots of this legal clash date back to Epic Games’ antitrust lawsuit which criticized Apple’s restrictions in its App Store. A federal judge’s previous ruling found that Apple’s actions, which included measures that made it difficult for developers to promote alternatives outside the App Store, violated this order. The ruling further determined Apple imposed excessive commissions on purchases made through other systems after users interacted with the App Store—a decision that led to Apple’s contempt citation.
Apple argued at the Supreme Court that a stay was necessary to litigate its commission rates under what it claimed was a flawed contempt finding. The company emphasized that without this delay, proceedings could alter the global app market significantly before they could appeal for a review by the Supreme Court.
Epic Games countered, urging the court to stay uninvolved, citing Apple’s actions have already “successfully delayed the restoration of competition by more than two years,” allowing continued benefit from historically high fees. This argument underscores the antitrust implications and the court’s earlier decisions affirming excessive fees as a competitive breach.
Justice Kagan’s quick decision, delivered less than an hour after Epic’s statement was made public and before Apple could provide a reply, concluded Apple’s request without full court review, indicating the matter was straightforward. The decision marks another pivotal moment in the lengthy and contentious legal battle between the two industry giants, as detailed in an analysis on SCOTUSblog.