Amicus briefs show strong support of Apple's arguments ahead of Epic Supreme Court judgement

Several legal and business groups, alongside the U.S. government, submitted briefs to the Supreme Court this week addressing Apple's lawsuit against Epic Games. The Supreme Court agreed to hear Apple's argument that a civil contempt ruling against the company should be overturned in its dispute with Epic Games. Apple allowed developers to direct users to external purchasing options while imposing a 27% commission on those transactions.

After Epic challenged Apple's implementation, the district court found the company in civil contempt. Apple has been charging a commission ever since and is now seeking to reverse that ruling, arguing that the injunction's text did not prohibit charging a commission and that lower courts relied on the "spirit" of the injunction to find the company in contempt.

Apple's official opening merits brief with the Supreme Court argued that the contempt ruling should be overturned due to the original injunction's unclear prohibition of charging a commission. Apple also argued that standing by the contempt finding would increase the risk of judicial overreach and leave companies uncertain about what conduct a court order actually prohibits.

The U.S. Department of Justice, through the Solicitor General's office, and various legal and business groups filed amicus briefs supporting Apple's challenge. The DOJ argued that civil contempt is only appropriate if the defendant's conduct is clearly covered by the injunction's express terms, which was not the case with Apple's decision to charge a 27% commission.

The DOJ also echoed Apple's argument that civil contempt is improper when there is a "fair ground of doubt" as to whether an injunction actually prohibited the conduct at issue. The DOJ concluded that the Supreme Court "should reverse the contempt finding as to the 27% commission." However, the DOJ still supported the lower courts' holding of Apple in contempt over its "plain button" restriction.

The remaining issues, such as restrictions on where external purchase links could appear, will be reconsidered by the lower courts under the "fair ground of doubt" standard. Other amicus briefs from the ICLE and Former Federal Antitrust Enforcers also emphasized the importance of enforcing injunctions based on their actual terms rather than their perceived "spirit."