Apple has formally submitted its proposed commission rates for purchases made outside the App Store in the ongoing Epic Games antitrust case. The filing, submitted to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, outlines a tiered fee structure that would apply to linkouts — transactions where developers direct users to external payment methods instead of using Apple's in-app purchase system.

Apple's proposed off-App Store fee structure

Under the proposal, Apple would charge a 15% commission for standard apps, which are still subject to the 30% commission when sales occur through the App Store's in-app purchase system. For participants in the Video Partner Program (VPP), the News Partner Program (NPP), the Mini Apps Partner Program (MPP), and for subscription renewals, the proposed linked-out rate is 10%. Apps enrolled in the Small Business Program would pay a 5% commission on purchases made through external links.

Apple said the proposed rates are supported by factual and expert evidence submitted alongside the proffer. The company argued that "large numbers of U.S. developers collectively accounting for the lion's share of App Store revenue will be able to link out profitably at the proffered rates," resulting in substantial competitive pressure on Apple's own in-app purchase system. Apple added that the rates allow the company to recover compensation for the value that its IP-protected tools, technologies, and services provide to developers, which courts have repeatedly acknowledged as legitimate and procompetitive.

Background of the Epic v. Apple litigation

The dispute began in August 2020, when Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite, deliberately introduced its own direct payment system into the iOS app to avoid Apple's 30% commission. Apple responded by removing Fortnite from the App Store, and Epic promptly filed an antitrust lawsuit challenging Apple's App Store policies.

In September 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued a landmark ruling. She found that Apple did not hold monopoly power in the mobile gaming transaction market, but ruled that Apple's anti-steering provisions violated California's Unfair Competition Law. The judge then issued an injunction requiring Apple to allow developers to include links and buttons directing users to alternative purchasing methods.

Apple subsequently began charging a 27% commission on off-App Store purchases, claiming that it should still be compensated for the services it provides even when developers use external payment systems. Epic challenged that fee, arguing it made the injunction meaningless. Judge Gonzalez Rogers later found Apple in contempt for failing to comply with the spirit of her order.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals later reversed the outright ban on commissions for linked-out purchases, clarifying that such commissions are problematic only if they are effectively prohibitive. This opened the door for Apple to propose a specific fee schedule.

Supreme Court allows proceedings to continue

Apple tried repeatedly to pause the rate-determination proceedings while it asked the Supreme Court to review the contempt finding. The company argued that the Supreme Court's decision could affect the outcome of the fee-setting proceedings and that the lower-court case should therefore be put on hold. However, in early August 2026, the Supreme Court denied Apple's request to pause the proceedings, allowing the District Court to continue evaluating the appropriate commission structure.

Apple made clear that it still believes the rate-determination proceedings should be paused, and that it submitted the proposal only to comply with Judge Gonzalez Rogers's instructions. The company is expected to file its brief with the Supreme Court by September 14.

Apple's justification and industry comparisons

To support its proposed structure, Apple compared its rates with those charged by competing app stores. The company noted that Google Play charges a 20% standard linked-out rate, a 15% program rate, and a 10% subscription rate. Apple also pointed out that Epic agreed to those rates in its separate antitrust litigation with Google. Additionally, Apple referenced Samsung Galaxy Store and Amazon's Android App Marketplace as benchmarks for industry practices.

Apple argued that the proposed rates strike a balance: they are low enough to allow developers to profitably steer customers to external payment systems, yet still high enough for Apple to recover costs related to its app store infrastructure, developer tools, and intellectual property. The company emphasized that courts and the Ninth Circuit have repeatedly recognized these services as legitimate.

Epic's immediate response

Epic Games wasted no time in reacting to Apple's proposal. The company published a statement on X, saying: "Apple's filing is in, and Apple admitted that under the Ninth Circuit's definition of 'necessary costs' they would charge 0% for purchases made via linkouts to the web." Epic also noted that Apple proposed linked-out fees of 15% for standard apps and 5% for Small Business Program apps, calling into question why any fee is justified if Apple's actual necessary costs are zero.

Epic has long argued that Apple should not be allowed to charge any commission on transactions that occur entirely outside Apple's ecosystem, since Apple does not process the payments, host the content, or provide the same level of infrastructure. The company's response sets the stage for a contentious round of briefing before Judge Gonzalez Rogers.

Impact on developers and the broader app economy

If approved, the proposed fee structure would have significant implications for developers in the United States. Currently, all digital goods and services sold through iOS apps must use Apple's in-app purchase system, and Apple collects a commission of 30% for standard apps or 15% for small business developers. A linkout commission would allow developers to redirect customers to their own websites or third-party payment processors, but they would still owe Apple a percentage of each sale.

For small developers, a 5% fee is arguably a reasonable compromise that preserves some revenue for Apple while enabling external transactions. However, larger developers, including Epic, Spotify, and others, have argued that any commission on off-platform transactions amounts to a tax on services Apple does not actually provide. They contend that once a user leaves the App Store to make a purchase, Apple's operational costs are minimal and the fee should be zero.

The outcome of the proceedings will also have global implications. Apple has already been forced to relax its rules in other jurisdictions. In the European Union, the Digital Markets Act requires Apple to allow third-party app stores and alternative payment methods, and Apple has introduced reduced commissions in that context. Japan's competition authority also prompted Apple to allow reader apps to link to external payment systems. A ruling in the Epic case could set a precedent for how Apple structures its fees worldwide.

Next steps in the case

With Apple's proffer now submitted, Epic will have a specified period to respond. The court will likely consider written submissions and may schedule hearings to evaluate the reasonableness of the proposed fees. Legal experts will be scrutinizing the expert reports and data Apple filed alongside its proposal, with particular attention to the definition of "necessary costs" that Epic has highlighted.

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court continues to review whether Apple can be held in contempt for charging the earlier 27% commission. Apple's brief is due by September 14, and the Court's decision could influence the ongoing lower-court proceedings. If the Supreme Court rules in Apple's favor on the contempt issue, it could alter the legal framework for evaluating future commissions.

For now, the ball is in Epic's court to challenge Apple's numbers and propose an alternative. The tech industry will be watching closely, as the final decision could redefine how app stores monetize their platforms in the United States and potentially affect how digital marketplaces operate across the globe.

Source:9to5Mac News