Apple has proposed taking a 15% commission on purchases made outside the App Store. The proposal, submitted to the U.S. District Court of Northern California on Thursday, comes after the Supreme Court rejected Apple’s bid to delay the lower court proceedings. The iPhone maker’s legal battle with Epic Games over anti-competitive App Store policies has been ongoing for years, and this filing represents a significant step in determining how Apple will be allowed to monetize external link payments.
Apple App Store Commission 15% Proposal Details
Under the newly proposed structure, the standard Apple App Store commission 15% rate would apply to most apps. However, the company has introduced tiered discounts for developers enrolled in specific programs. Small business developers would pay a reduced 5% commission on external payments, while those in the Video Partner Program, News Partner Program, and Mini Apps Partner Program would pay 10%. Subscription renewals would also see a reduced rate of 10%.
This proposal is Apple’s formal response to the court’s request regarding its commission structure for purchases made using external links inside apps on iOS devices. The company had previously attempted to delay this submission, arguing that proceedings should wait until the Supreme Court ruled on whether Apple was in contempt of a court order. The Supreme Court rejected that bid on Thursday, compelling Apple to reveal its planned commission structure.
The Ongoing Legal Battle with Epic Games
The Apple App Store commission 15% proposal is the latest development in a years-long legal dispute between Apple and Epic Games. The game developer has alleged that Apple’s App Store policies are anti-competitive, particularly regarding the commissions charged on in-app purchases. The case has become a landmark battle over the control that major platform holders exercise over their digital marketplaces.
Apple maintains that it should be permitted to charge fees on in-app purchases made by users of its devices. The company argues these fees help recoup its investments in the tools, technology, and services that allow it to maintain the App Store and its software ecosystem. Without these commissions, Apple claims, it would be unable to sustain the infrastructure that benefits both developers and consumers.
Comparisons to Google Play’s Commission Structure
In its filing, Apple compared its link-out fees to those charged by Google Play. Google’s commission structure includes 20% link-out rates for standard apps, 15% for apps in special programs, and 10% for subscription renewals. Apple noted that Epic Games had agreed to these rates on Google’s platform, suggesting that its own proposed rates are competitive within the industry.
This comparison is strategically important for Apple’s defense. By highlighting the similarities between its proposed rates and Google’s existing structure, Apple is attempting to demonstrate that its commission model is not uniquely restrictive or anti-competitive. The company appears to be positioning the Apple App Store commission 15% rate as a reasonable industry standard rather than an outlier.
Implications for Developers and the App Ecosystem
The proposed commission structure could have significant implications for developers who rely on the App Store as a distribution channel. The tiered discounts for small business developers and participants in special programs may provide some relief for smaller operations. The 5% rate for small businesses represents a substantial reduction from the standard rate, potentially encouraging more developers to explore external payment options.
However, the structure also reinforces Apple’s continued role in monetizing transactions that occur outside its direct payment system. Developers who want to link customers to external purchase options will still need to pay Apple a percentage of those transactions. This approach maintains Apple’s financial interest in app commerce while complying with court requirements about allowing alternative payment methods.
The Supreme Court’s Role in the Dispute
The Supreme Court’s rejection of Apple’s bid to pause further action in the lower court case was a pivotal moment that forced the company to submit its proposal. Apple had been attempting to delay the proceedings until the Supreme Court could weigh in on whether the company was in contempt of a court order. That court order had previously required Apple to allow developers to inform customers about alternative payment options.
The contempt issue stems from Apple’s earlier imposition of a 27% commission on purchases made through external links, along with rules restricting how developers could present those links to customers. Critics argued these moves violated the spirit of the original court order, which was intended to increase consumer choice and reduce Apple’s control over app transactions.
The Apple App Store commission 15% proposal now moves forward in the legal process. Developers and industry observers will be watching closely to see how the court responds to Apple’s proposed structure. The outcome could have lasting effects on the mobile app ecosystem, potentially influencing how other platforms structure their own commission models.
For now, Apple’s proposal represents a compromise between its desire to maintain revenue from the App Store ecosystem and the court’s push for greater openness. Whether this structure will ultimately satisfy the court—or whether further adjustments will be required—remains to be seen. What is clear is that the relationship between platform holders and developers continues to evolve, and this case will likely serve as a reference point for future disputes in the digital marketplace.
