Apple Proposes 15% Off-App Store Fees in Epic Case
Apple Submits Fee Proposal Amidst Ongoing Epic Games Litigation
By Decode Today News
Apple has officially submitted its proposal detailing the fees it believes it should be permitted to charge for purchases made outside of the traditional App Store system in the United States. This significant development comes as part of the protracted legal battle with Epic Games, following a denial from the Supreme Court to pause the lower-court proceedings that will ultimately determine these contentious commission rates.
![Apple proposes commissions of up to 15% for off-App Store purchases in the US [U] Decode Today](https://i0.wp.com/9to5mac.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2026/05/app-store.webp?resize=1200%2C628&quality=82&strip=all&ssl=1 "Apple proposes commissions of up to 15% for off-App Store purchases in the US [U] Decode Today")
The tech giant's proffer, outlining a proposed fee structure, arrived just after the Supreme Court rejected Apple's appeal to halt the District Court proceedings. Apple had sought to pause these proceedings while the Supreme Court reviewed whether the company could be held in contempt for charging a 27% commission on off-App Store purchases. This earlier rate followed an injunction issued by Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, which mandated that Apple allow developers to direct users to alternative purchasing methods, thereby introducing the concept of "linked-out" transactions.
Apple's argument to both the lower court and the Supreme Court hinged on the premise that the higher court's decision could significantly influence the outcome of the fee-setting process, thus warranting a delay. However, the Supreme Court's denial of this request clears the path for the lower-court proceedings to continue as its review progresses, compelling Apple to submit its fee proposal.
Understanding Apple's Proposed Commission Structure
Under the submitted proposal, Apple suggests a tiered commission system for purchases made via alternative, linked-out methods. The core of this proposal outlines fees of up to 15% for standard applications, while apps participating in the Small Business Program would face a reduced rate of 5%. These rates aim to balance Apple's desire for compensation with the court's emphasis on fostering competitive pressure within the in-app purchase (IAP) market.
The company asserts that "fact and expert evidence with respect to these proposed commission rates are concurrently submitted." According to Apple's expert analysis, a substantial number of U.S. developers, who collectively generate the majority of App Store revenue, are expected to be able to profitably link out at these proposed rates. This, Apple argues, would introduce the "substantial competitive pressure on IAP" that the District Court has repeatedly underscored as a crucial objective.
Furthermore, Apple emphasized that these rates would enable it to "recover at least some compensation for the value that its IP-protected tools, technologies, and services provide to developers." Both the District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals have consistently acknowledged the legitimacy and pro-competitive nature of Apple seeking remuneration for its intellectual property and the ecosystem it provides.
Competitive Landscape and Industry Benchmarks
To contextualize its proposal, Apple drew comparisons to other prominent app stores that operate in a competitive landscape. The company noted that its "proposed linked-out commission can also be compared to commissions for app stores that compete with the App Store." These include major players such as the Google Play Store, the Samsung Galaxy Store, and Amazon's Android App Marketplace.
Specifically, Apple highlighted the fee structure of the Google Play Store for linked-out rates, stating that it charges a 20% "standard" rate, a 15% program rate, and a 10% subscription rate. Notably, Apple pointed out that Epic Games itself had previously agreed to these rates offered by Google. This comparison serves to position Apple's proposed fees within established industry norms, arguing for a similar basis of `cost efficiency` and `operating margin` for developers utilizing alternative payment gateways.
Key Commission Rates Comparison
| Platform | Linked-Out Standard Rate | Linked-Out Program Rate | Linked-Out Subscription Rate |
|---|---|---|---|
| Apple (Proposed) | Up to 15% | 5% (Small Business Program) | Not specified in proposal |
| Google Play Store (Existing) | 20% | 15% | 10% |
Navigating the Legal Complexities: Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit's Influence
Despite submitting its fee proposal, Apple reiterated its belief that the rate-determination proceedings should remain paused while its case is still pending before the Supreme Court. The company clarified that its submission was made solely to comply with Judge Gonzalez Rogers' explicit instructions, underscoring the ongoing legal tension.
An important legal precedent shaping this discussion is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' reversal of the District Court's initial outright ban on commissions for linked-out purchases. The Ninth Circuit's ruling clarified that such commissions are only deemed "problematic" if they are "effectively prohibitive." This nuanced interpretation provides Apple with a legal basis to argue for reasonable compensation rather than a zero-fee model for external transactions, directly impacting the potential `investment yield` for developers if rates are set too high or too low.
The legal framework established by the Ninth Circuit underscores a delicate balance: allowing developers choice in payment methods while recognizing the platform provider's right to compensation for the underlying infrastructure and services. This dynamic impacts not only Apple's `market valuation` and revenue streams but also influences the `consumer demand` elasticity for digital content and services, as developers weigh the trade-offs of various payment processing options.
Epic Games' Immediate Reaction and Counter-Claims
In response to Apple's submission, Epic Games swiftly issued a statement via X (formerly Twitter), highlighting a stark contrast in interpretation. Epic claimed that Apple, "admitted that under the Ninth Circuit's definition of 'necessary costs' they would charge 0% for purchases made via linkouts to the web." This assertion from Epic suggests a fundamental disagreement over what constitutes "necessary costs" for facilitating external purchases, implying that Apple's proposed 15% and 5% rates are excessive compared to a theoretical zero cost for simply linking out.
Epic's statement emphasizes its belief that the proposed linkout fees of 15% for standard apps and 5% for Small Business Program apps are still problematic. This divergence illustrates the core of the ongoing dispute: what constitutes a fair and non-prohibitive charge for the value Apple provides when a transaction occurs off-platform but is initiated through its ecosystem. The outcome will have profound implications for `enterprise integration` strategies for developers and the broader digital economy.
Implications for Developers and Market Dynamics
The proposed commission rates, if accepted, would significantly alter the `operating margin` for many developers, particularly those with high transaction volumes. For larger developers, the ability to link out profitably at 15% could indeed introduce substantial competitive pressure on Apple's in-app purchase system, forcing a re-evaluation of its own IAP rates or value proposition. For smaller developers, the 5% rate for the Small Business Program offers a more accessible path, potentially fostering innovation and growth within that segment.
The regulatory scrutiny and ongoing legal battles surrounding app store commissions are indicative of broader trends in the technology sector, where platform control and revenue sharing models are under intense review. The eventual resolution of the Apple vs. Epic Games case is expected to set a critical precedent for `compliance security` and commercial agreements across digital ecosystems, influencing how platform providers monetize their services globally and how developers manage their revenue streams.
Key Developments in the Apple vs. Epic Saga
- Injunction Issued: Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers mandated Apple to allow developers to direct users to alternative purchasing methods.
- Apple's Appeals: Company attempted multiple times to pause District Court proceedings, citing potential Supreme Court decision impact.
- Supreme Court Denial: Supreme Court denied Apple's request to pause lower-court proceedings.
- Fee Proposal Submission: Apple submitted its proffer detailing proposed commissions of up to 15% for standard apps and 5% for Small Business Program apps for off-App Store purchases.
- Ninth Circuit Ruling: Reversed an outright ban on commissions, stating they are problematic only if "effectively prohibitive."
- Epic's Reaction: Stated Apple's proposal implied a 0% fee under "necessary costs" but proposed 15% and 5%, highlighting a discrepancy.
The Road Ahead in the Commission Dispute
With Apple's proffer now submitted, the next phase of this intricate legal process involves Epic Games, which will have its opportunity to respond to the proposed fee structure. Simultaneously, Apple is preparing to file its brief with the Supreme Court by September 14, continuing its higher-level legal challenge. The outcomes of these proceedings will not only shape the future of digital commerce on Apple's platforms but also potentially influence the wider tech industry's approach to platform monetization and developer relations, impacting billions in `market valuation` and future `investment yield` for all stakeholders.
