A US District Court has delivered a sharp rebuke to Apple, criticising the tech giant’s interpretation of a court injunction in strong terms and rejecting its arguments for a narrow, literal reading of the order.
The court’s findings signal trouble for Apple, suggesting its attempts to comply with only the strictest letter of the law – while ignoring its underlying purpose – will not suffice.
The core of the dispute centres on Apple’s compliance with an injunction related to its “anticompetitive” conduct and pricing regarding its App Store policies.
Apple argued that its actions should be judged solely against the precise text of the relatively brief, one-paragraph injunction itself, rather than the extensive reasoning laid out in the accompanying 180-page order. The court dismissed this emphatically.
“First, it is ludicrous to expect any court to repeat the contents of a 180-page order issued in conjunction with a simultaneously issued one-paragraph injunction,” the court stated. “The latter flows from the former. To suggest otherwise strains credulity.”
Furthermore, the court asserted that even under Apple’s preferred narrow lens, the company had failed. “Second, even limited to the four corners of the Injunction, Apple violated the literal text,” the ruling declared.
The most significant part of the court’s reasoning focused on the established legal principle that the intent and purpose – the “spirit” – of an injunction are paramount, especially when a party adopts a “dubiously literal interpretation” seemingly designed to circumvent the order’s objectives. The court highlighted that this is not a novel concept, citing precedents from multiple circuits.
“Third, contrary to Apple’s position, other courts within this and other circuits will look to the spirit of the injunction when a litigant applies a dubiously literal interpretation of the injunction, particularly where that interpretation is designed to evade the injunction’s goals,” the court explained.
To bolster this point, the ruling referenced several key cases. It quoted the Second Circuit’s decision in John B. Stetson Co. v. Stephen L. Stetson Co. (1942): “In deciding whether an injunction has been violated it is proper to observe the objects for which the relief was granted and to find a breach of the decree in a violation of the spirit of the injunction, even though its strict letter may not have been disregarded.”
The court also pointed to the Third Circuit’s ruling in United States v. Christie Indus., Inc. (1972), noting that while ambiguities generally favour the party charged with contempt, “this is not to say that where an injunction does give fair warning of the acts that it forbids, it can be avoided on merely technical grounds.
“The language of an injunction must be read in the light of the circumstances surrounding its entry: the relief sought by the moving party, the evidence produced at the hearing on the injunction, and the mischief that the injunction seeks to prevent.”
Recent cases reaffirm this principle. The court mentioned Simon v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco (2024) from its own district (N.D. Cal.), where conduct violating the “spirit” but arguably not the “strict terms” was still found problematic, and Cnty. of Fulton v. Sec’y of Commonwealth (2023), which noted a “long list of cases” rejecting defences based on overly literal interpretations.
Perhaps most damningly, the court expressed concern that Apple’s approach would force the judiciary into an endless game of “whack-a-mole,” constantly issuing new, specific prohibitions to counter each technical workaround devised by the company.
Quoting Justice Douglas in McComb v. Jacksonville Paper Company, the court warned against allowing companies immunity from contempt simply because their specific evasion tactic wasn’t explicitly forbidden: “It does not lie in their mouths to say that they have an immunity from civil contempt because the plan or scheme which they adopted was not specifically enjoined. Such a rule would give tremendous impetus…”
The implication is clear: such an approach would encourage, rather than deter, efforts to undermine court orders.
For developers, who have often found themselves challenging Apple’s App Store rules, this ruling could be significant. It suggests courts may be less tolerant of compliance strategies from Apple that adhere to the bare minimum wording of an order while subverting its intended effect, particularly concerning user communication and alternative payment systems.
Apple has faced increasing global scrutiny over its App Store practices, including its commission structure and rules governing developers. Rulings like this, which emphasise the purpose and spirit of legal constraints over semantic loopholes, could signal a more challenging legal environment for the company as it navigates regulatory pressures and lawsuits worldwide.
The court’s firm stance indicates that it expects Apple to align its conduct not just with the precise phrasing of the injunction, but with the underlying goals the injunction was meant to achieve, as detailed in the associated comprehensive order. Failure to do so could potentially lead to findings of contempt, carrying significant legal and financial consequences.
Epic Games, which has mostly led the charge against Apple over its App Store policies in courts around the world, views the court’s judgement as a win and has offered a “peace proposal” if Apple extends the court’s framework worldwide:
What remains to be seen is how Apple will respond to this judicial dressing-down. Will it adjust its practices to align more closely with the spirit of the injunction, or will it continue to test the boundaries, potentially leading to further legal confrontations?
See also: EU DMA: Apple and Meta hit with first major fines
Looking to revamp your digital transformation strategy? Learn more about Digital Transformation Week taking place in Amsterdam, California, and London. The comprehensive event is co-located with IoT Tech Expo, AI & Big Data Expo, Cyber Security & Cloud Expo, and other leading events.
Explore other upcoming enterprise technology events and webinars powered by TechForge here.
