Apple’s New Fee Structure Faces Legal Scrutiny From Epic

Apple recently updated its App Store guidelines to allow developers to include external purchase links, but it attached a significant condition: any purchases made through those links still incur a 15% commission. Epic Games immediately condemned this move, calling it a brazen attempt to sidestep the court’s injunction. In its legal filing, Epic argued that the fee is not a payment-processing charge but a pure “acquisition fee” on transactions that occur entirely outside Apple’s infrastructure. This, Epic says, directly contradicts the spirit of the court’s ruling, which required Apple to permit links to alternative payment methods without imposing punitive economic burdens. The company pointed out that Apple’s new terms effectively make it financially irrational for any developer to use external links, since they would lose Apple’s payment security and user-friendly checkout flow while still paying nearly the same commission. Epic’s lawyers emphasized that the fee structure is designed not to comply with the law, but to preserve Apple’s monopoly rents. They also noted that Apple’s rules still prohibit developers from telling users about cheaper options inside their own apps, which was the core anti-steering behavior that the court had addressed. As a result, Epic is asking the judge to hold Apple in contempt and to order a more meaningful remedy that genuinely opens competition.

Epic Says “Anti-Steering” Changes Are a Sham, Not a Settlement

In public statements and court documents, Epic’s CEO Tim Sweeney called Apple’s new policy “a bad-faith compliance theater” rather than a genuine settlement. He argued that Apple has merely traded a 30% in-app purchase commission for a 15% link-out fee, which still exceeds the cost of payment processing by an enormous margin. Sweeney stressed that the original lawsuit was never about the percentage alone; it was about the right of developers to communicate directly with customers and to route them to independent payment systems without paying a toll. Apple’s new rules still forbid developers from showing a “buy now” button that directs users to a web browser, even after the user has clicked an external link. Moreover, Apple requires developers to request a special entitlement, submit to extensive auditing, and display a system warning page that discourages users from leaving the App Store. Epic’s legal team argued that these measures are deliberately designed to make external links ineffective. They cited internal Apple emails suggesting that the company views external payment links as a threat to its services revenue. Epic’s response was blunt: if Apple truly wanted to comply with the court’s order, it would allow developers to present pricing comparisons and clear calls to action, without charging any fee for transactions that do not use Apple’s payment systems. Instead, Apple has created a labyrinth of restrictions that preserves its gatekeeper role while pretending to open the door.

The 15% External Link Fee: A New Toll on Developers

The most contentious element of Apple’s revised policy is the 15% commission on digital purchases completed via external links within 24 hours after a user clicks out of an app. Epic argues that this is effectively a “link tax” — a fee for merely providing a hyperlink, not for any service. Apple does not process the payment, host the transaction, or provide refund support or fraud protection in that flow. Yet it still demands a cut that rivals the commission for transactions processed entirely inside the App Store. Small developers, who might previously have enjoyed a 15% reduced commission under the App Store Small Business Program, now face the same 15% rate on external sales, but without any of the benefits of Apple’s ecosystem. Epic highlighted that this fee applies to all digital goods, including games, subscriptions, and consumables, and that it must be reported and paid retroactively if a user clicks a link and makes a purchase hours later. The compliance burden is enormous: developers need to embed tracking mechanisms, report gross sales, and undergo external audits. Epic argued that this creates a chilling effect that is exactly what Apple intended. By making the alternative payment path nearly as costly and far more complex, Apple effectively forces developers to stay on the original 30% commission route. Epic’s analysis showed that for most developers, the cost savings of using external links would be negligible after accounting for payment processing fees and administrative overhead, making the entire exercise pointless.

What This Means for the Future of App Store Regulation

Epic’s challenge is not just about its own game, Fortnite — it is a broader test of whether courts and regulators can meaningfully rein in platform gatekeepers. If Apple is allowed to impose a 15% fee on external transactions, Epic warns that Apple will effectively have won a pyrrhic victory: it will have opened the App Store in name only, while maintaining its economic stranglehold. This case could set a precedent for other digital platforms, including Google, which has faced similar antitrust actions. Regulators in the European Union, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States are watching closely. The EU’s Digital Markets Act already prohibits anti-steering rules and requires platforms to allow developers to communicate freely with customers. Apple’s new fee structure in the U.S. could clash with those emerging norms. Epic argues that the only way to truly restore competition is to require Apple to permit third-party app stores on iOS and to allow developers to process payments without any Apple-imposed commission on transactions that do not use Apple’s payment system. The company also suggests that users should be able to sideload apps, as they can on desktop computers. While Apple has implemented some changes in Europe under DMA pressure, its U.S. response has been defiant. Legal experts believe that the upcoming contempt hearing will be critical: if the judge rules against Apple, it could force a fundamental redesign of the App Store’s business model. If Apple prevails, however, Epic may appeal, and the fight could eventually reach the Supreme Court. Either way, the outcome will shape how digital marketplaces charge fees, restrict links, and treat independent payment alternatives for years to come.