Latest Salvo in VK v. Apple Sanctions-Related Litigation
November 12, 2026
Russia’s “Lugovoy Law” purports to confer exclusive jurisdiction on Russian courts in disputes involving persons and entities subject to sanctions. It applies even if the sanctioned party agreed in advance to a forum-selection clause in favor of a foreign forum. The law also authorizes Russian courts to issue anti-suit injunctions prohibiting counterparties from initiating or pursuing foreign proceedings. It backs up this framework with the threat of significant financial penalties in the event of non-compliance.
The Lugovoy Law has triggered a number of lawsuits involving the issuance of anti-anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions. Last week, the Northern District of California (Judge P. Casey Pitts) ordered injunctive relief in the ongoing dispute between VK (formerly VKontakte), Russia’s leading social media platform, and Apple.
Background
For many years, applications developed by VK were available for download in Apple’s App Store. In June of 2026, Apple removed those apps from the store. It attributed that decision to concerns regarding ownership or control by sanctioned persons that had surfaced during a compliance review of VK. (In 2022, the U.S. Treasury had added Vladimir Kiriyenko, VK’s CEO, to its list of sanctioned individuals; VK itself has since been sanctioned by the European Union.)
In August, VK responded by filing suit in Russia against Apple and two of its affiliates, seeking to regain access to the App Store. It also requested that Apple be subject to a daily fine of 58,000,000 rubles (approximately $700,000) in the event of non-compliance with an eventual judgment in VK’s favor.
On October 20, Apple initiated litigation in the Northern District of California seeking a declaratory judgment that it had acted lawfully in removing VK’s apps. It noted that VK had accepted the terms of Apple’s Developer Program License Agreement, which included an exclusive forum-selection clause in favor of that court. On that basis, it also sought an injunction barring VK from continuing the proceedings in Russia. The court granted a temporary restraining order and ordered VK to show cause why a preliminary injunction should not be issued.
Ten days later, the Russian court entered an order directing Apple and its affiliates to terminate the California proceedings on the ground that the court there lacked jurisdiction over the claims.
VK failed to appear in the California litigation, and on November 6 Judge Pitts enjoined them from taking any further action in pursuit of the Russian lawsuit (other than to seek an immediate adjournment or stay of that suit).
Analysis
The Ninth Circuit has adopted a three-part test to determine when an anti-suit injunction is appropriate. First, the court must establish that the parties and issues are the same in both the U.S. and the foreign proceeding. Second, it must conclude that at least one of the so-called Unterweser factors—a set of four conditions that justify the exceptional measure of blocking foreign litigation—is present. Third, it must determine whether the impact on international comity is acceptable in the particular case.
After concluding that the first element was met, Judge Pitts turned to the Unterweser factors. One of those is based on public policy: a foreign proceeding may be enjoined if it would frustrate an important policy of the U.S. forum. As Judge Pitts observed, allowing a party to litigate abroad in violation of an exclusive forum-selection clause would undermine the strong public policy in the United States favoring enforcement of such clauses. (Indeed, as explained in this primer, this is one of the most routine and least controversial uses of anti-suit injunctions.)
Judge Pitts also concluded that the impact on comity would be tolerable. He characterized the matter as “a private contractual dispute” that was less likely to threaten comity than disputes “implicating public international law or government litigants.” Given the circumstances, this analysis arguably downplayed the sovereign interests involved. As other courts have noted, garden-variety contract claims between private parties rarely implicate public international law issues—but this one does. Apple’s stated justification for removing VK’s apps (an action that in fact drew a direct response from the Kremlin) was the imposition of governmental sanctions. And in its pleadings in the Russian proceeding, VK argued that U.S. sanctions law was in conflict with Russian public policy.
Regardless of the international comity factors at play, Judge Pitts’s order was appropriate. The Northern District of California clearly had jurisdiction over the contractual dispute between VK and Apple. The objective of the Lugovoy Law, as implemented by the anti-suit injunction issued by the Russian court in this case, was to preclude it from exercising that jurisdiction. That sort of interdictory action is always incompatible with international comity and justifies the issuance of an anti-anti-suit injunction in response.
Conclusion
Injunction wars like this one inevitably lead to an unsatisfactory stalemate. Apple is not complying with the Russian anti-suit injunction, and there is likewise no guarantee that VK will comply with Judge Pitts’ order by dropping its lawsuit in Russia. If that proceeding continues and results in a judgment in VK’s favor, Apple will presumably refuse to pay the resulting penalties. But its assets in Russia, where its local subsidiary is one of the defendants, are vulnerable. Any effort by VK to enforce an eventual judgment outside Russia, though—whether in the United States or in a third country—is likely to be met by a worldwide anti-enforcement injunction.