While the US DOJ won't take sides in a case, the Solicitor General filed a brief sharing that violating "the spirit of the injunction" wasn't within standards, echoing Apple. Apple is ready to face the Supreme Court in October.

The Apple vs Epic lawsuit has been ongoing for over six years. It started as an intentional violation of Apple's App Store rules, which led to the lawsuit and almost total victory for Apple on all but one charge. Apple was ordered to remove its anti-steering practices, which it did, but was found in violation of the injunction due to not following the spirit of the injunction. After more than a year of back and forth, the Supreme Court will soon weigh in on the matter, and various firms have filed amicus briefs ahead of the October decision.

The standout amicus brief comes from the United States Solicitor General John Sauer, who is essentially the lawyer that represents the federal government in cases before the Supreme Court of the United States. His opinion has weight, and while he doesn't take either side in the case, his arguments mirror Apple's while also suggesting some contempt charges were accurate. The brief states that the Supreme Court "reiterated that a party may be held in civil contempt for violating an injunction only 'if there is no fair ground of doubt,'" seven years prior, but in Apple's case "the Ninth Circuit held that petitioner could be found in civil contempt simply for having violated 'the spirit of the injunction.'" It continues that "the courts below erroneously held petitioner in contempt for charging a 27% commission on certain transactions that were "steered" from petitioner's software platform" but "a fair doubt ground of doubt exists whether the injunction's text, read in context, barred the 27% commission."

Apple has said similar on multiple occasions, and having the Solicitor General echo those statements is a boon to the case. However, he's not painting Apple in a totally innocent light either. The brief suggests that the lower courts were correct in holding Apple in contempt for certain design limitations. Specifically, it calls out the distinction between "buttons" and "links," suggesting Apple's original solution was insufficient. Other amicus briefs were filed and shared the same repeat opinions on whether an injunction could be violated in "spirit." The Washington Legal Foundation, The Chamber of Commerce of the United States, and Chamber of Progress all