Apple Proposes 15% Commission on Purchases Made Outside the App Store

Apple on August 14, 2026 submitted a proposal to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California detailing the commissions it intends to charge on purchases made through external links inside iOS apps. The filing comes after the Supreme Court rejected Apple's bid to pause the lower court proceedings (TechCrunch, 2026-08-14).

The proposal sets a 15% commission on external-link purchases for standard apps. Small business developers would pay 5%. Developers in the Video Partner Program, News Partner Program, and Mini Apps Partner Program would pay 10%. Subscription renewals would also see a reduced 10% rate (TechCrunch, 2026-08-14).

Apple's filing includes a direct comparison to Google Play's link-out structure, as Apple sees it: 20% for standard apps, 15% for apps in special programs, and 10% for subscription renewals. The comparison is presumably intended to frame Apple's proposed rates as competitive within the mobile platform market, though the court will evaluate the proposal on its own terms (TechCrunch, 2026-08-14).

For context, Apple's standard App Store commission is 30% for developers selling digital goods and services, with most developers eligible for a reduced rate under the Small Business Program (Apple, 2015-10-27). The new proposal would apply specifically to transactions routed through external links — that is, links inside an app that take a user to a website to complete a purchase, rather than processing the payment through Apple's in-app purchase system. This mechanism is at the center of the ongoing litigation with Epic Games, docketed as 4:20-cv-05640 in the Northern District of California (CourtListener).

The legal backdrop is consequential. In March 2024, Epic Games told the court that Apple was "blatantly" violating a prior court order, citing among other things a new 27% fee Apple had imposed on external-link purchases (Reuters, 2025-05-01). On April 30, 2025, a U.S. judge ruled that Apple had indeed violated the court order to reform its App Store practices (Reuters, 2025-05-01).

Apple had argued that the lower court proceedings on its commission structure should wait until the Supreme Court ruled on whether Apple was in contempt of the court order for imposing the 27% commission. The Supreme Court rejected that bid, forcing Apple to disclose its proposed commission structure (TechCrunch, 2026-08-14). A federal judge had already denied Apple's motion and confirmed the court would continue assessing Apple's commission for linked-out purchases, as reported on August 11, 2026 (Courthouse News, 2026-08-11).

Apple has separately implemented a comparable structure in Japan. In December 2025, Apple announced changes to iOS under which apps on the App Store in Japan pay a 15% commission on digital goods and services transacted through websites linked from the app (Apple, 2025-12-17). The alignment between the Japanese framework and the U.S. proposal suggests Apple is converging on a consistent global rate for link-out commissions, though each jurisdiction's terms remain separately negotiated or adjudicated.

Apple argued in its filing that it should be permitted to charge fees on in-app purchases made by users of its devices to recoup its investments in the tools, technology, and services that maintain the App Store and its software ecosystem (TechCrunch, 2026-08-14). The court had also ordered Apple to provide the number of apps in the U.S. App Store eligible for the external link entitlement program (CourtListener).

The trajectory here is clear from the facts. Apple initially imposed a 27% commission on external-link purchases, was found to have violated a court order in doing so, attempted to delay proceedings via the Supreme Court, was rebuffed, and has now proposed a substantially lower tiered structure. The 15% standard rate is nearly half the 27% figure that triggered the contempt finding, and the 5% rate for small business developers is a fraction of the traditional 30% (reduced to 15% under the Small Business Program) that has defined App Store economics for over a decade.

The proposal is just that: a proposal. The court will continue to assess whether these rates satisfy the injunction's requirements, and Epic Games will have the opportunity to challenge them. What Apple has done is put specific numbers on the table under compulsion, after years of litigation and a contempt ruling. Whether 15% is a genuine concession or another contested middle ground is for the court, and ultimately the market, to determine.