SAN FRANCISCO — Apple filed its proposed commission structure with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on Aug. 14, laying out a tiered fee system for purchases made through external payment links inside iOS apps. The filing came after the Supreme Court rejected Apple's request to halt lower court proceedings while a separate contempt question winds through the appellate process.
The core proposal sets a 15 percent commission on external purchases for standard apps. Small business developers pay five percent on those transactions. Developers enrolled in Apple's Video Partner Program, News Partner Program and Mini Apps Partner Program pay 10 percent. Subscription renewals, regardless of program tier, also carry a 10 percent rate under the proposed structure.
The filing is the latest chapter in Apple's years-long legal fight with Epic Games over App Store economics. Epic sued Apple in 2020, arguing that the company's 30 percent in-app purchase commission and its control over iOS distribution together constituted anticompetitive conduct. The case produced a 2021 injunction requiring Apple to allow developers to include links directing users to outside payment options—the very mechanism these new commissions would apply to.
Apple's trouble with that injunction is what forced Thursday's filing. The company had previously responded to the court order by allowing external links but imposing a 27 percent commission on purchases made through them, and by restricting how developers could present those links visually. That response drew a contempt finding, and the Supreme Court was asked to pause lower court action until it weighed in on the contempt issue. The justices declined, which compelled Apple to submit its revised commission proposal on the court's original schedule.
Apple's justification in the filing rests on recoupment: the company argues it is entitled to fees on external purchases to recover its costs building and maintaining the tools, software infrastructure and services that underpin the App Store and iOS platform. That argument runs parallel to the rationale Apple has used to defend its standard in-app purchase commissions, scaled down to reflect the fact that an external payment bypasses Apple's own payment processing entirely.
The company also introduced a competitive comparison in its filing, pointing to Google Play's link-out fee structure. Google charges 20 percent on external purchases for standard apps, 15 percent for apps in special programs and 10 percent on subscription renewals. Apple said that Epic Games has agreed to those Google Play rates—a detail Apple appears to be using to frame its own proposed rates as reasonable by industry comparison.
The comparison cuts both ways commercially. Apple's proposed 15 percent standard rate sits five points below Google's 20 percent link-out fee, which gives Apple the ability to argue its terms are not only defensible but more developer-friendly than an agreed-upon industry benchmark. Whether Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, who is presiding over the case in the Northern District, accepts that framing as a basis for approval is a separate question.
For developers, the practical stakes depend heavily on which tier they fall into. A small business paying five percent on external transactions faces a different economics calculation than a large standard app paying 15 percent. The in-app purchase commission Apple charges through its own payment system is 30 percent for most apps and 15 percent for small businesses and qualifying subscriptions—meaning external links still represent a lower-cost path under every tier in Apple's proposal, though the gap narrows considerably at the standard rate.
Apple's stock closed at $305.93 on Aug. 16, up 0.2 percent on the day, as the market absorbed the filing without a major reaction. The revenue at stake is difficult to quantify precisely because external link volumes on iOS remain small—Apple's prior 27 percent rate and its restrictive link presentation rules had suppressed developer adoption of the external payment option. A lower rate structure, if approved, would likely draw more developers to external payments, shifting transaction volume away from Apple's own higher-margin payment processing pipeline.
The court has not set a date for ruling on Apple's proposal. Epic is expected to contest the rates, and Judge Gonzalez Rogers retains authority to reject the proposal outright and impose different terms. Apple's contempt exposure over the original 27 percent fee structure remains a live issue at the appellate level regardless of how the commission proposal resolves in the district court.
