Apple charged 27% on external-link purchases, was found in contempt over that fee structure and its compliance with the injunction, and is now proposing 15% like it deserves a thank-you note. After the Supreme Court declined to pause lower-court proceedings in May, the district court in Northern California kept moving — and Apple filed a tiered commission proposal that reframes contempt-driven backpedaling as reasonable compromise.
The number dropped. The logic didn’t.
The Rate Structure Apple Is Asking For
The proposed tiers reveal a careful segmentation strategy — but even the lowest rate still keeps Apple’s hand in your checkout flow.
Apple’s proposed structure, according to MacRumors and MLex reporting from August 2026:
- Standard apps: 15% on linked-out purchases
- Small Business Program participants: 5%
- Video Partner, News Partner, and Mini Apps Partner programs: 10%
- Subscription renewals: 10%
Apple’s filing also points to Google Play as a benchmark — Google charges 20% for standard apps, 15% for partner programs, and 10% on subscription renewals. Apple tells the court that Epic agreed to those Google Play rates. The implication Apple wants the court to draw: if Epic accepted Google’s toll, Apple’s proposed rates look positively neighborly by comparison.
Apple argues it’s entitled to recoup costs for the tools and ecosystem services that support App Store infrastructure. Think of it like a highway authority charging a fee on a road the court ordered them to unlock — then presenting the invoice as a public service.
The Real Fight Isn’t the Percentage
For developers, the core question was never about which number Apple picked — it’s whether any fee survives legal scrutiny at all.
If you’re a developer who spent years waiting for external checkout links to actually mean something, Epic’s counterargument lands with weight. Epic has argued that Apple’s original 27% charge wasn’t a cost-recovery measure — it was a moat disguised as a fee, designed to make linking out economically pointless while maintaining technical compliance with the injunction.
The stakes extend well beyond this dispute. The district court’s ruling will set a precedent for how much any platform operator can charge when users leave an app to complete a purchase elsewhere. It’s the streaming wars problem applied to payments: the platform controlling distribution always finds a way to tax the exit ramp.
The court’s decision on what counts as “reasonable” — and whether that bar is tied to Apple’s actual costs — will determine whether external checkout links represent a genuine alternative or just expensive theater: compliance on paper, extraction in practice.
Even a 5% court-approved fee confirms that the era of truly free external payment rails never actually arrived. It just changed its price tag.
