The United States Supreme Court Denies Apple's Petition for a Stay of Contempt Proceedings Regarding App Store Regulations.
美國最高法院拒絕 Apple 申請暫緩關於 App Store 規範的藐視法庭程序。
Introduction
The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to suspend a lower court's finding that Apple violated an injunction concerning the operational parameters of its App Store.
美國最高法院拒絕暫緩下級法院的裁定，即 Apple 違反了關於 App Store 營運參數的禁制令。
Main Body
The current legal impasse originates from a 2020 antitrust action initiated by Epic Games, which sought the liberalization of iOS distribution protocols and transaction mechanisms. Although Apple prevailed in the majority of the litigation, a 2021 judicial injunction mandated the facilitation of external payment links within applications. The subsequent implementation of a 27% commission for transactions executed via third-party systems—contrasted with the standard 30% internal fee—precipitated a finding of civil contempt by U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in 2025. This determination was subsequently affirmed by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in December, although the court permitted the submission of further arguments regarding permissible commission rates for digital goods.
目前的法律僵局源於 Epic Games 在 2020 年發起的一項反壟斷行動，旨在要求開放 iOS 的分發協議與交易機制。雖然 Apple 在大部分訴訟中獲勝，但 2021 年的一項司法禁制令強制要求應用程式內必須提供外部付款連結。隨後，Apple 對於透過第三方系統執行的交易收取 27% 佣金（與標準 30% 的內部費用相比），導致美國地方法官 Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers 在 2025 年裁定其藐視民事法庭。此裁定隨後於 12 月被美國第九巡迴上訴法院維持，儘管法院允許就數位產品的可接受佣金率提交進一步論據。
Stakeholder positioning remains polarized. Apple maintains that it has not contravened judicial orders and contends that the injunction's scope should not extend to the broader developer ecosystem. Furthermore, the corporation asserts that the resolution of this matter possesses global regulatory implications. Conversely, Epic Games posits that any delay in enforcement would facilitate the continued accrual of illicit profits at the expense of developers and consumers. The Supreme Court's refusal to grant a temporary stay, delivered via Justice Elena Kagan, precludes Apple from pausing the 9th Circuit's ruling while the company prepares a comprehensive appeal.
相關利益方的立場依然對立。Apple 主張其並未違反司法命令，並認為禁制令的範圍不應延伸至更廣泛的開發者生態系統。此外，該公司聲稱此事的解決具有全球監管影響。相反，Epic Games 認為任何執行上的延遲，都將導致 Apple 繼續以犧牲開發者和消費者的利益為代價，獲取非法利潤。最高法院由大法官 Elena Kagan 傳達，拒絕授予臨時暫緩，使得 Apple 在準備全面上訴期間，無法暫停第九巡迴法院的裁決。
Conclusion
Apple remains subject to the 9th Circuit's contempt ruling as it proceeds with its formal appeal to the Supreme Court.
Apple 在向最高法院正式上訴之際，仍受第九巡迴法院的藐視法庭裁定約束。
Vocabulary Learning
The Architecture of Legal Precision: Nominalization and Latinate Density
To migrate from B2 to C2, a student must stop describing events and start encoding them. The provided text is a masterclass in Nominalization—the process of turning verbs (actions) into nouns (concepts). This is the primary engine of formal, academic, and legal English.
1. The 'Action-to-Entity' Shift
Observe how the text avoids simple subject-verb-object constructions in favor of complex noun phrases.
- B2 approach: Epic Games sued Apple because they wanted to change how apps are distributed.
- C2 execution: *"...an antitrust action initiated by Epic Games, which sought the liberalization of iOS distribution protocols..."
By using liberalization (noun) instead of liberalize (verb), the writer transforms a process into a formal objective. This allows for the insertion of high-level modifiers (e.g., distribution protocols) without cluttering the sentence structure.
2. Lexical Precision: The 'Latinate' Register
C2 mastery requires the ability to choose a word that carries a specific legal or systemic weight. Notice the precision in these pairings:
| B2/C1 Term | C2 Legal Equivalent | Nuance |
|---|---|---|
| Disagreement | Impasse | A deadlock where no progress is possible. |
| Breaking the law | Contravened | Specifically violating a formal rule or treaty. |
| Prevent | Precludes | Making something impossible through a prior action. |
| Resulted in | Precipitated | Causing an event to happen suddenly or prematurely. |
3. Syntactic Compression
Look at the phrase: "...the subsequent implementation of a 27% commission... precipitated a finding of civil contempt."
This sentence contains no 'action' verbs in the traditional sense until the very end. The subject is a massive noun phrase (the subsequent implementation of a 27% commission). This is the 'Heavy Subject' technique, common in C2 discourse, where the actor is an abstract concept rather than a person. It strips away emotional bias and replaces it with institutional objectivity.