This article may contain affiliate links. Learn more on our Partner Program page.
In the dispute over App Store commissions, a voice has emerged before the Supreme Court that Apple usually associates with as an adversary: the US government. Its written submission vindicates Apple on the most crucial issue – while explicitly confirming the violation on another point. This distinction is precisely what makes it so interesting.
On September 21, the U.S. Department of Justice, through the Solicitor General, filed a brief on behalf of the U.S. government with the Supreme Court in case no. 25-1311. Formally, the government appears as an amicus curiae, not supporting either party. Substantively, it recommends that the Court overturn one contempt of court ruling against Apple, uphold another, and remand the remainder to the lower court.
The court accepted Apple's appeal at the end of June and limited its review to a single question: Can a court convict a party of contempt for violating the "spirit" of an injunction, even if the wording of the injunction is silent on the conduct in question? Apple's own brief was filed on September 14, and Epic Games has until November 13 to respond.
Key Facts at a Glance
- The US government recommends lifting the disregard for the 27 percent commission on external purchases.
- However, the disregard for the "simple button" is to remain in place – Apple has effectively banned buttons.
- The lower court is to re-examine four further design specifications according to the stricter standard.
- The government explicitly declined to comment on the question of whether Apple acted in bad faith.
- The procedure concerns the US App Store; in the EU, external purchase links are regulated by the Digital Markets Act and Apple's own terms and conditions.
Three recommendations for three points of contention
In April 2025, the district court in California found Apple guilty of violating several regulations simultaneously. The written submission clearly separates these points and arrives at different conclusions.
| Point of contention | Findings of the lower courts | Recommendation of the US government |
|---|---|---|
| 27 percent commission on purchases made via external links | disregard | lift |
| Only "simple buttons" are allowed. | disregard | confirm |
| Four further guidelines on the design and placement of links | disregard | back to the lower court |
| Accusation of bad faith | noted | No comment |
The standard applied by the government is the "fair ground of doubt" from the 2019 Taggart v. Lorenzen decision. According to this principle, a violation only occurs if there is no reasonable doubt that the order prohibited the conduct. The appellate court did not even mention this standard and instead relied on the spirit of the order – a clear legal error, according to the written submission.
Why 27 percent shouldn't be a ban
The original 2021 ruling prohibited Apple from forbidding developers from including buttons, external links, and other indications of alternative purchase methods. It made no mention of commissions. Apple allowed such links starting in January 2024 and charged 27 percent – the usual 30 percent minus a 3 percent discount because Apple did not process the payment itself.
The district court considered this a construct that makes external purchases economically unattractive. As evidence, it cited the fact that, out of approximately 136,000 developers in the App Store, only 34 had registered for external links within four months. That's roughly one in 4,000.
The government counters: An order that only prohibits the posting of links provides no clear indication that charging a fee for them is also inadmissible. A 300 percent commission might be interpreted as a disguised ban, but 27 percent is even lower than the rate for in-app purchases. Anyone objecting to excessive payment fees charged by developers must raise this issue in a separate legal process, not through mere disregard of the regulation.
Why the invisible button doesn't work
The verdict on Apple's design guidelines is different. Only a so-called "plain button" was permitted: no shape with a contrasting background color; the background had to exactly match that of the app. Visually, it was therefore indistinguishable from a regular text link.
Because the order lists buttons and links separately, the government interprets Apple's view as requiring it to allow both. Allowing only links and calling them buttons effectively prohibits buttons. The legal document sees no reasonable doubt on this point and recommends confirming the violation.
Consequences for the commission in the USA
In parallel, the district court is considering what commission Apple will be allowed to charge in the US in the future. While the appeals court largely upheld the violation in December 2025, it generally allowed Apple to receive compensation for external purchase links, provided it is not prohibitively high. Until then, Apple does not charge anything for such purchases in the US.
In August, Apple submitted a tiered commission proposal to the court, requesting 15 percent as the standard rate. The commission ban is part of the sanction the district court based on the contempt ruling. If the ruling regarding the 27 percent commission is upheld, this part would be invalid; the button ruling would remain unaffected.
A written submission in one's own defense
The roles are clearly defined. The same Department of Justice has been pursuing an antitrust case against Apple since March 2024, which cleared its first hurdle in June 2025. On this core issue, the department's position is closer to Apple's than to Epic's.
The reasoning for this is provided by the document itself: The government is regularly a party to rulings, both as defendant and plaintiff. A standard that permits disregard even for a violation of the spirit of an order would apply equally to public authorities. This also explains why the text regarding the button issue is so clearly against Apple – it concerns a general rule, not taking sides.
The outcome is still valuable for Apple. The government does not consider the commission, which has been the subject of years of dispute, to be a breach of trust. It explicitly leaves it to the lower court to determine whether Apple acted in bad faith and what sanctions might be imposed.
Why developers in the EU are not affected
This procedure concerns the US App Store. In Germany and Austria, external purchase links are governed by the Digital Markets Act, which classifies the App Store as a central platform service, and by Apple's own terms and conditions for the EU. Apple revised these terms following an agreement with the European Commission; they will apply from October 1st.
For users in this country, nothing changes as a result of the legal ruling. Which subscriptions are billed through Apple is shown in the purchase history in the Apple account; purchases made directly on a provider's website bypass Apple.
The path to judgment
In addition to the government, business and legal organizations have submitted further statements, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, technology industry associations, and a group of former federal antitrust officials. Epic Games is next in line; the deadline is November 13.
The government wants to extract more from the court than just a general principle: it should demonstrate, through concrete cases, where the line is drawn. If it follows this line of reasoning, businesses and courts will have a precedent for both sides – a fee that isn't mentioned in the text, and a button that isn't really a button.
Should a court be allowed to punish a company for demonstrably circumventing an order, even if the wording didn't explicitly prohibit the behavior – or must every order clearly state what is forbidden? Tell us in the comments which side you're on.
