Apple and Epic argue over how much Apple should get from purchases made outside the App Store
Apple has proposed charging developers fees on digital purchases made through external web links rather than Apple’s in-app payment system, reigniting its legal dispute with Epic Games. The issue matters because it could determine how much control and revenue Apple retains when developers direct US customers outside the App Store.
Apple’s proposed charges are 15% for standard apps, 10% for certain partner programmes and subscription renewals, and 5% for Small Business Program apps. It acknowledges that its narrowly defined “necessary costs” for external purchases would be close to zero, but argues the fees compensate it for platform services; Epic says the charges exceed the Ninth Circuit’s guidance and has about 60 days to oppose them.
- Apple proposes up to 15% fees on external web purchases.
- Epic says the proposed fees exceed permitted costs.
- The court dispute could reshape App Store payment rules.
New here? Start with this
Apple controls the App Store, where people can find and download apps for its devices. Developers can also direct customers to websites to pay for digital goods or subscriptions, rather than using Apple’s payment system.
Epic Games, the maker of Fortnite, has challenged Apple’s rules in court, arguing they restrict developers’ choices and competition. The dispute is about whether Apple can charge developers when customers make purchases outside the App Store, and how much it may charge.
The outcome could affect the costs developers face and the prices or payment options available to customers. It could also shape how much control Apple has over payments linked to apps on its devices.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Apple argues it deserves compensation for providing the platform ecosystem that enables developers to build and sustain their customer base. Even though individual transactions occur outside the App Store, developers benefit from Apple's infrastructure, security systems, user trust, and payment networks that attracted and retained their customers in the first place. The proposed fees, scaled below Apple's 30% App Store rate, reflect Apple's contribution to the ongoing relationship rather than a claim on each external transaction itself.
The case against
Epic contends that Apple cannot legitimately charge for services it does not provide. When a transaction occurs through a developer's external web link, Apple has performed no additional work—no payment processing, security screening, or customer support for that specific sale. The Ninth Circuit indicated Apple should recover only genuine costs; Apple admits these are nearly zero yet proposes 15% charges regardless. This permits Apple to extract value from transactions it neither technically nor economically facilitated, exploiting its platform monopoly to prevent meaningful competition.