The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal by Apple regarding a contempt-of-court ruling. The case involves a long-running antitrust dispute between Apple and Epic Games Inc., the developer of (Fortnite).
In a brief order on Tuesday, the Supreme Court justices said they will review the rulings of lower courts. The related ruling found that Apple had deliberately violated a decision from 2021 involving Apple App Store developer fees.
The court’s decision adds a new chapter to the antitrust dispute between Apple and Epic Games that began in 2020. In the initial lawsuit, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that the Apple App Store did not violate federal antitrust laws. The App Store generates billions of dollars in revenue for Apple each year by charging developers a percentage of digital sales commissions.
However, the judge found that the company violated California law and ordered Apple to allow developers to direct consumers to cheaper online payment methods. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the ruling.
In response, Apple allowed developers to direct users to make purchases via the web, but it imposed a new 27% commission on the resulting revenue. Epic subsequently accused Apple’s new fees of violating the 2021 ruling.
After a series of hearings, Rogers found that Apple violated her earlier judgment and ordered the company to stop charging a commission on transactions outside its app store. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld Rogers’ contempt ruling. However, the court sent the case back for a new trial to further consider whether Apple should be allowed to collect a certain commission for developers’ use of its intellectual property.
Apple then appealed to the Supreme Court.
A Supreme Court order on Tuesday indicated that it would not take up a second question raised by Apple, challenging a judge’s decision regarding a so-called “universal injunction.” The injunction covers how Apple treats all developers worldwide. Apple argued that the injunction conflicts with last year’s ruling by the Chief Justice in another case.