Apple’s 15% External Fee Bid Admits Its Own Zero Floor

Apple has asked a California federal court to let it collect up to 15 percent on purchases that start inside an iOS app and finish on the open web. The filing lands after the Supreme Court refused to pause the fee-setting process, and it immediately drew fire from Epic Games, which says Apple already conceded the proper number under existing appellate guidance is zero.

The proposal is half the classic 30 percent App Store cut for standard apps. It still collides with the narrow “necessary costs” test the Ninth Circuit handed the district court, a collision that turns Apple’s compliance paper into the next round of the same fight.

The Rates Apple Put on Paper

In its remand proffer to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, Apple set three tiers for linked-out transactions in the United States.

Apple told the court that expert evidence shows large developers who drive most App Store revenue “will be able to link out profitably at the proffered rates,” creating “substantial competitive pressure on IAP.” The company also said the structure lets it recover “at least some compensation for the value that its IP-protected tools, technologies, and services provide.”

Those sentences matter. Apple is no longer defending the old 27 percent external fee that triggered the contempt finding. It is arguing that any sustainable external option still requires a platform cut big enough to keep IAP from collapsing while still funding the store’s shared infrastructure.

Ninth Circuit Language Leaves Little Room

The Ninth Circuit upheld the contempt ruling against Apple’s earlier anti-steering workarounds but narrowed the remedy. Apple may charge a commission “based on the costs that are genuinely and reasonably necessary for the coordination of linked out purchases, but no more.” The panel said that category can include limited compensation for intellectual property directly used in the link-out path. It does not stretch to the full security, privacy, or store-wide cost stack Apple has long cited for its 30 percent take.

What the circuit treated as out of bounds:

• Security and privacy features already paid for by IAP and device sales
• General App Store operating costs not tied to the external link itself
• Any rate high enough to make link-outs effectively prohibitive once developers also pay their own payment processor

Processing a web checkout already costs developers more than 3 percent in typical payment fees. Stack a double-digit Apple commission on top and the total can exceed ordinary IAP for many titles. That math is exactly why the appeals court rejected Apple’s prior 27 percent structure as defeating the purpose of the original anti-steering injunction.

Epic Reads the Filing as a Confession

Epic’s public response landed the same day. In Epic’s official statement on the filing, the company wrote that Apple “admitted that under the Ninth Circuit’s definition of ‘necessary costs’ they would charge 0% for purchases made via linkouts to the web.” Epic called the 15 percent and 5 percent proposals “far outside of the bounds” of that guidance and said it has roughly 60 days to file opposition backed by expert witnesses.

Apple’s filing is in, and Apple admitted that under the Ninth Circuit’s definition of “necessary costs” they would charge 0% for purchases made via linkouts to the web.

That is the Epic Games Newsroom account speaking on August 13. The 60-day clock now runs while Apple prepares its Supreme Court brief, due by September 14. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney had already labeled the coming schedule a “menu of junk fees” when the stay requests failed earlier in the week. The crowd layer on X quickly split between developers who see any percentage as a distribution tax already covered by the $99 program fee and device margins, and others who argue zero free-riding would force Apple to raise fixed costs or starve free-app discovery.

Google’s Numbers Became Apple’s Exhibit

Apple pointed the court to competing stores. It said Google Play’s linked-out rates run from 10 percent to 20 percent and noted that Epic had agreed to those rates in its dealings with Google. After their March 2026 settlement path, Google has been rolling out lower service fees and formal external-content and alternative-billing programs for US users, with reporting and fee obligations scheduled to tighten later in 2026 under Google Play’s US external-links program rules.

The comparison is double-edged. Apple wants the court to treat 10-20 percent as a market-validated range. Epic can answer that Google’s settlement and Android’s more open distribution model are not the same legal box as a court-ordered remedy limited to necessary coordination costs on a closed platform. Either way, the Google benchmark is now on the record in the Apple docket.

Developers Who Feel the Math First

For a large game or streaming service the difference between 30 percent IAP and 15 percent web is real cash, but only if conversion holds after the user leaves the app. Friction, lost session data, and higher chargeback risk all eat the savings. Small Business Program members already sit at 15 percent inside IAP; dropping to 5 percent on the web looks attractive on a spreadsheet yet still requires them to run their own checkout, tax handling, and refunds.

Practical break-even factors many studios are already modeling:

• Payment-processor take (often 2.9% + fixed fee) stacked on Apple’s cut
• Conversion drop when users leave the native purchase sheet
• Refund and customer-support load that Apple no longer absorbs
• Whether the title already qualifies for partner program 10 percent rates
• Risk that a later court or rule change moves the number again

Some markets already show what lower or zero external friction can do. Korea’s App Store volume under local fee-free external rules has been large enough to draw notice in Korea App Store fee-free volume figures. That precedent sits in the background while US developers wait for Judge Gonzalez Rogers to pick a number.

Meanwhile Epic continues to press the broader store war with free high-profile titles and its own mobile distribution efforts, a pattern visible in Epic’s mobile freebie strategy against app stores. The fee case and the distribution case remain linked in practice even when the court papers treat them separately.

Two Clocks Running at Once

The district-court fee process and the Supreme Court certiorari track are no longer sequenced the way Apple wanted.

1. August 11-13, 2026, Stay requests denied; Apple files the 15/10/5 percent proffer on the extended deadline.
2. ~60 days from filing, Epic opposition with experts due.
3. September 14, 2026, Apple Supreme Court brief deadline on the contempt-related questions.
4. October 2026 term, Supreme Court argument window opens; a decision could arrive months later and potentially unsettle whatever rate the district court sets first.

Apple also asked for a settlement referral. Epic has shown little interest in any framework that leaves a meaningful percentage on web checkouts. Parallel tracks mean a temporary rate could be ordered, then revised, or the whole fee exercise could be mooted if the higher court rewrites the contempt foundation.

Outside the US the picture stays fragmented. Apple already publishes lower partner and renewal rates in the EU under DMA-driven terms, including the reduced tiers detailed in Apple’s reduced EU commission tiers for partners. Those figures are not controlling in California, yet they show Cupertino can live with lower percentages when regulation forces the issue.

The Filing That Undercuts Itself

Apple needed to put a number on paper. The number it chose is cleaner than 27 percent and lower than its classic IAP menu. In the same breath it told the court that a pure reading of “necessary costs” produces zero. That concession is now Epic’s lead exhibit. Whether Judge Gonzalez Rogers treats 5-15 percent as reasonable coordination compensation or as still-prohibitive will decide if external checkout becomes a genuine competitive check on IAP or merely a lightly taxed side door.

For now the external path is free in the US under the existing injunction. Apple wants that window closed at a price. Epic wants the price locked at the floor Apple already calculated. The irony is sitting in the filing itself.