Apple proposes external link fees in Epic case

Apple's Proposed Fee Structure

In its new filing, Apple has proposed a structure for collecting fees on digital purchases made via external links that don't use its in-app purchase system. Under this plan, Apple would collect:

• 15 percent of fees from purchases in "standard apps"
• 10 percent of fees for apps in the Video Partner Program, the News Partner Program, the Mini Apps Partner Program, and subscription renewals
• 5 percent of fees from apps in the Small Business Program

Apple argues that its "necessary costs" to allow external purchases, as defined by the Ninth Circuit, "would be essentially zero." The company claims that, based on an "expert analysis," at the proposed rates, "it appears 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." Apple also states the rates would let it recoup "at least some compensation" for its tools, technologies, and services it provides to developers.

Legal Background and Context

The proposal follows a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruling that Apple should be able to charge a commission based on “necessary costs.” This ruling came after California district court judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found in April 2025 that Apple “willfully” did not comply with her 2021 Epic Games v. Apple injunction. The Supreme Court has also said it will hear arguments about whether Apple willfully violated the April 2025 ruling.

Currently, Apple cannot take a commission on external purchases due to the injunction. However, the Ninth Circuit’s interpretation allows Apple to recoup fees tied to “necessary costs.” This legal backdrop frames Apple’s newly proposed fee structure, which is designed to align with the appellate court’s guidance while still generating revenue from developers who link out to external payment systems. Epic has already responded, arguing that Apple’s request is “far outside of the bounds” of the court’s guidance, setting the stage for continued litigation over the scope of permissible commissions.

Apple's Justification and Analysis

Apple acknowledges that its “necessary costs” to enable external purchases, as defined by the Ninth Circuit, “would be essentially zero.” Despite this admission, the company argues that the proposed fee structure should be permitted to recoup “at least some compensation” for the tools, technologies, and services it provides to developers. Apple contends that these rates are justified based on an “expert analysis,” which it claims shows 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.” This suggests that while the fees would generate revenue for Apple, the structure is designed to ensure that a significant portion of the developer ecosystem can still operate profitably when directing users to external purchase mechanisms, thereby framing the proposal as a balanced approach to compensation.

Epic's Response

Epic has already responded to Apple's proposal, arguing that the request is "far outside of the bounds" of the court's guidance. The response pushes back against the fee structure Apple outlined in its Thursday filing, which would see the company collect 15 percent of fees from purchases in "standard apps," 10 percent for apps in the Video Partner Program, the News Partner Program, the Mini Apps Partner Program, and subscription renewals, and 5 percent from apps in the Small Business Program.

Epic's objection comes amid a complex legal backdrop. A Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals panel previously said Apple should be able to charge a commission based on "necessary costs," but Apple itself acknowledges those costs "would be essentially zero." The Supreme Court has also agreed to hear arguments about whether Apple willfully violated the April 2025 ruling. Epic's stance suggests the company believes Apple is overstepping the bounds of what the courts have authorized, setting the stage for the next phase of their long-running dispute.