In the long-standing dispute between Apple and Epic Games, there's a small but significant twist. It concerns contempt of court.
To briefly recap, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, overseeing the case, has issued multiple rulings, which both parties have tried to appeal. Back in 2021, Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to allow developers to add links and buttons in their apps for purchases outside the App Store — aimed at saving them from the commission for using the built-in payment system. However, the corporation decided to partially bypass this restriction and attempted to introduce a 27% charge for such transactions to compensate for losses. Gonzalez Rogers later deemed these actions a violation and accused Apple of contempt.
The case is currently under review by the U.S. Supreme Court. Recently, the U.S. Department of Justice submitted an "amicus curiae" brief to the court, siding with Apple.
In the letter, the U.S. Department of Justice stated that, technically, Apple cannot be entirely blamed. The department pointed out that the 2021 ruling did not explicitly state that Apple could not charge a commission for purchases outside the App Store, hence the corporation did not display any contempt in this instance.
Nonetheless, the U.S. Department of Justice acknowledged that Apple might have shown contempt in another aspect — the corporation did not allow the addition of buttons in the apps for alternative payment methods, limiting itself to only links. However, they believe this should be considered separately.
Notably, besides the U.S. Department of Justice, several influential organizations have also written amicus curiae briefs. These include the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the International Center for Law & Economics, as well as the lobbying coalition "Chamber of Progress." They also supported Apple.