Apple Proposes New Tiered App Store Commissions

Apple has filed a new proposal to charge tiered commissions—15%, 10%, and 5%—on purchases made through external payment links, as it attempts to comply with a long-running injunction stemming from its legal battle with Epic Games.

What Apple is proposing

According to the filing, Apple's new structure breaks down as follows:

15% commission for standard apps on external purchases
10% commission for apps in the Video Partner Program, News Partner Program, Mini Apps Partner Program, and for subscription renewals
5% commission for apps in the Small Business Program
0% commission for purchases made via linkouts to the web, which Apple argues satisfies the Ninth Circuit's "necessary costs" standard

For comparison, Google Play currently charges 20% for standard apps, 15% for special programs, and 10% for subscription renewals on external link-outs—rates the report notes Apple's new proposal would undercut across the board.

How we got here

The dispute traces back to the original 2021 Epic Games v. Apple injunction. In April 2025, California district court judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple had "willfully" failed to comply with that injunction. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals subsequently issued guidance allowing Apple to charge a commission based on "necessary costs"—but Apple's response was to impose a 27% commission on external link purchases while also restricting how developers could present those links. That move raised the prospect of contempt-of-court penalties.

More recently, the Supreme Court rejected Apple's request to pause further lower-court proceedings, clearing the way for this new filing. Epic Games has already pushed back, stating that Apple's proposed fees "are far outside of the bounds of the Ninth Circuit's guidance on permissible fees." Epic now has roughly 60 days to file a formal opposition backed by expert testimony.

Risks and open questions

The report flags several risks worth tracking:

Apple could still face contempt-of-court penalties tied to its earlier 27% commission practice.
Epic's opposition could delay implementation of the new tiered structure.
Continued legal uncertainty may complicate how developers plan external payment integrations in the meantime.
Courts and regulators could extend scrutiny to other app marketplaces, given direct comparisons being drawn to Google Play's fee model.

Several details remain unclear, including the precise criteria behind the Ninth Circuit's "necessary costs" standard, the timeline for a court ruling on Apple's proposal versus Epic's opposition, and how these new rates compare to Apple's original 30% in-app purchase commission. Sources reviewed for this report did not identify direct factual conflicts on the commission percentages or case background.

Why founders should care

For app developers—particularly small businesses and subscription-based products—this filing could matter in a few ways, though outcomes remain uncertain:

If adopted, the tiered structure would likely reduce costs for apps in the Small Business Program (5%) and partner programs (10%) compared to Apple's prior 27% external-link commission.
Founders relying on subscription renewals or partner-program apps may want to model margin scenarios under both the proposed and current rates, since Epic's opposition could still block or reshape these numbers.
The case may signal broader limits on platform commission structures industry-wide, given the Ninth Circuit's "necessary costs" framework and the direct comparisons being made to Google Play's fees.
Given the ongoing litigation, founders should probably treat any current payment-flow or pricing decisions as provisional, with a moderate likelihood that final commission rates shift again before resolution.

What to watch next

The near-term milestone is Epic's opposition filing, due within about 60 days and expected to include expert witness testimony. How the court weighs that opposition against Apple's proposed rates will likely determine whether this tiered structure takes effect as written—or whether further revisions, or contempt proceedings, are still ahead.