Apple and Epic argue over how much Apple should get from purchases made outside the App Store
Apple proposed collecting commissions on digital purchases made via external links in its ongoing legal dispute with Epic Games Proposed fee structure: 15% for standard apps, 10% for Video/News/Mini Apps Partner Programs and subscription renewals, 5% for Small Business Program Apple admitted its "necessary costs" for allowing external purchases would be "essentially zero" under the Ninth Circuit's definition Epic argues Apple's proposed fees are "far outside the bounds" of the Ninth Circuit's gu
Analysis
TL;DR
- Apple proposed collecting commissions on digital purchases made via external links in its ongoing legal dispute with Epic Games
- Proposed fee structure: 15% for standard apps, 10% for Video/News/Mini Apps Partner Programs and subscription renewals, 5% for Small Business Program
- Apple admitted its "necessary costs" for allowing external purchases would be "essentially zero" under the Ninth Circuit's definition
- Epic argues Apple's proposed fees are "far outside the bounds" of the Ninth Circuit's guidance and has ~60 days to file opposition with expert witnesses
- The Supreme Court will also hear arguments about whether Apple willfully violated the April 2025 injunction ruling
Why It Matters
This case directly shapes how app stores can regulate alternative distribution channels and monetization methods, setting a precedent that could affect all major platform companies. The outcome will determine whether Apple can maintain its commission-based revenue model while complying with antitrust rulings, impacting millions of developers who rely on the App Store ecosystem.
Technical Details
- Apple's proposed fee tiers: 15% (standard apps), 10% (Video Partner, News Partner, Mini Apps Partner Programs, subscription renewals), 5% (Small Business Program)
- The Ninth Circuit defined permissible fees based on "necessary costs" to allow external purchases, which Apple acknowledged would be "essentially zero"
- California district court judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled in April 2025 that Apple "willfully" failed to comply with her 2021 injunction
- Apple argues its proposed rates would allow "large numbers of U.S. developers" to link out profitably while recouping compensation for tools and services
- Epic has approximately 60 days to file opposition supported by expert witnesses
Industry Insight
- The resolution of this case could force Apple to fundamentally restructure its App Store revenue model, potentially opening the door for more competitive commission structures across the industry
- Developers should monitor this closely as the outcome will determine the viability of external payment systems and alternative distribution on iOS
- The tension between "necessary costs" definitions and commission proposals sets a precedent that may influence similar antitrust cases against other platform companies like Google and Amazon
Disclaimer: The above content is generated by AI and is for reference only.