Overview

• Apple filed a reply brief arguing the district court’s April contempt ruling unlawfully expanded the original injunction and is unconstitutional.
• Apple asks the Ninth Circuit to reverse the contempt order, vacate the new injunction, or reassign the case to a different judge if further proceedings are required.
• Invoking the Supreme Court’s Trump v. CASA decision, Apple says the platform‑wide injunction should be narrowed to Epic alone rather than apply to all developers.
• Apple claims the order compels speech and denies compensation for its IP, calling the zero‑commission rule punitive and untethered to Epic’s alleged harm.
• Apple also points to a conflicting California appellate decision in Beverage v. Apple and maintains that, for now, it must permit fee‑free external links with no design restrictions for U.S. developers.