Apple Seeks Up to 15 Percent Commission on External Payment Links

A New Fee Structure Emerges

Apple has filed a court proposal requesting authorization to collect fees ranging from 5 to 15 percent on purchases made outside its native App Store payment infrastructure in the United States. The tiered structure reflects the company's attempt to define what it considers reasonable compensation for platform access, even when transactions bypass its billing system entirely.

The highest rate - 15 percent - would apply to developers currently paying the standard 30 percent commission on in-app purchases processed through Apple's own payment rails. Apps enrolled in specialized partner programs, including those for news, video, and mini-applications, would face a 10 percent charge, as would subscription renewals across all categories. The lowest tier, at 5 percent, targets developers in the Small Business Program, which encompasses the majority of the App Store's developer base and already benefits from a reduced 15 percent commission on Apple-processed payments.

The filing arrives as part of the ongoing litigation between Apple and Epic Games, a dispute that has stretched across six years and fundamentally questioned the economics of mobile app distribution. What began as a clash over in-app payment rules has evolved into a broader examination of platform power, developer autonomy, and the definition of anti-competitive conduct in digital marketplaces.

The Road to This Moment

Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers issued an injunction in 2021 requiring Apple to permit developers to include external payment links in their applications, a ruling intended to dismantle the company's exclusive grip on transaction processing. The intent was clear: developers should have the option to avoid the 30 percent commission by directing customers to alternative checkout flows.

Apple's initial response, however, introduced a new commission structure that ranged from 12 to 27 percent for externally processed transactions. Epic Games challenged this as non-compliance, arguing that the fees effectively nullified the court's directive. In 2025, Judge Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in contempt and ordered the company to cease collecting any fees on external payments.

The appeals court upheld the contempt finding but reversed the portion of the order that barred Apple from charging commissions altogether. That reversal created the current situation: the judge must now determine what constitutes a fair fee for access to the App Store ecosystem when the transaction itself occurs beyond Apple's infrastructure.

Comparing Platform Approaches

Google, facing parallel litigation with Epic Games, has taken a different path. On June 30 this year, the company opened the Play Store to external billing options and standardized its commission at 10 percent, regardless of the payment method a customer selects. In July, Google began permitting third-party app stores on Android devices, a move that theoretically expands competitive pressure on its own storefront.

Yet implementation friction remains a point of contention. During a recent court hearing, Epic Games demonstrated that installing rival app stores on Android requires navigating multiple prompts and warnings. The presiding judge responded by ordering Google to eliminate what the court termed "anticompetitive friction," signaling that procedural barriers can be as effective as outright prohibitions in maintaining market dominance.

The contrast between Apple's tiered proposal and Google's flat-rate approach highlights divergent strategies for managing the transition to more open ecosystems. Apple's structure preserves differentiation across developer segments and maintains higher rates for larger players, while Google's uniform rate simplifies compliance but may still leave questions about the underlying value proposition of platform access.

The Economics of Platform Fees

At the heart of this dispute lies a fundamental question: what does a platform provider deserve for creating and maintaining the infrastructure that connects developers with customers? Apple argues that it invests heavily in security, discovery mechanisms, development tools, and the brand equity that drives consumer trust. Even when a transaction occurs outside its payment system, the customer relationship originated through the App Store, and the developer benefits from iOS distribution.

Critics counter that once a customer chooses to leave the App Store environment to complete a purchase, Apple's role becomes minimal. The security and fraud protection benefits of Apple's payment system no longer apply, and the developer assumes the costs and risks of processing transactions independently. Under this view, any commission on external payments amounts to a tax on competition.

The proposed fee structure attempts to thread this needle by scaling charges according to existing commission tiers. Developers already paying 30 percent would see a 50 percent reduction when using external links, while Small Business Program participants would face only a 5 percent fee - one-third of their current rate. Whether these reductions satisfy the court's standard for fairness remains to be seen.

What Happens Next

Judge Gonzalez Rogers now faces the task of evaluating whether Apple's proposal aligns with antitrust principles and the original intent of the 2021 injunction. The court could approve the tiered structure as presented, mandate lower rates, or impose a different framework entirely. Any decision will likely face further appeals, extending the timeline before developers gain clarity on the rules governing external payments.

For the broader mobile ecosystem, the outcome will set important precedents. If courts affirm the right of platform operators to collect meaningful commissions on external transactions, the economic incentive for developers to bypass native payment systems diminishes. If judges impose minimal fees or prohibit them outright, the balance of power shifts, potentially accelerating the fragmentation of app distribution and payment processing.

The regional context matters as well. While this case unfolds in the United States, regulatory pressure in the European Union, South Korea, and other jurisdictions has already forced Apple and Google to adjust their policies. The Digital Markets Act in Europe, for instance, requires designated gatekeepers to permit alternative app stores and payment systems, with penalties for non-compliance. The global patchwork of rules creates complexity for developers operating across markets and raises questions about whether a single, universal approach to platform economics is feasible.

As the court weighs Apple's proposal, developers continue to navigate an evolving landscape where the old certainties of the App Store model are eroding, but the new rules remain unsettled. The 5-to-15 percent commission structure may represent a compromise, or it may prove to be another chapter in a saga that reshapes how software reaches users in the mobile age.