Apple wins lawsuit over commissions for external payment links Apfelpatient

Apple is once again at the center of a major legal case concerning payment methods in iOS apps. A US appeals court has ruled that Apple can again charge a reasonable commission for purchases made through external links. This ruling corrects key aspects of an earlier preliminary injunction in the legal dispute with Epic Games. The decision establishes clear, but also far-reaching, guidelines for app development and digital business models.

Since April, iOS apps have been allowed to include links to external purchasing options. This applies, for example, to services like Spotify, which advertise their offerings on their own websites and can direct users there. Previously, Apple was not allowed to charge any commission for this. However, the appeals court does not consider this regulation sustainable in the long term and deems parts of the original ruling excessive. The new decision redefined the situation, giving Apple more leeway while simultaneously setting limits to ensure that external links remain usable.

Apple and external payment links: a new starting point

The appeals court confirmed that Apple is generally entitled to charge a commission when a purchase is made through an external link. This fee should be based on the costs Apple incurs for coordinating such links and should also include compensation for the use of Apple's intellectual property. Costs for security and data protection should not be part of the fee.

Until the amount of this commission is determined, Apple cannot yet collect it. The district court must now decide what fee is considered reasonable. The appeals court is explicitly calling for swift action (via Reuters).

Criticism of Apple's implementation so far

Following the initial court order, Apple offered developers a new fee model. Instead of the usual 30 percent, Apple charged 27 percent for purchases made through external links. Since developers also had to pay fees to payment processors, this model was, in practice, more expensive than regular in-app purchases. Almost no one used the new option.

The court sees this as a clear violation of the spirit of the injunction. Apple made external links as unattractive as possible, thereby deliberately preventing developers from taking advantage of the new freedom. This approach is considered a civil violation. At the same time, the court finds that the district court's previous total prohibition of commissions was inappropriate because it would have permanently deprived Apple of any compensation, even if the commission had been fairly calculated.

Rules for the design and language of external links

The ruling also clarifies how developers may design their external links in the future and what restrictions Apple can impose.

Link design

Apple is allowed to prevent external links from being more prominently displayed than in-app purchase options. This includes fonts, sizes, placement, and other visual elements. However, developers must at least place links in the style permitted for Apple's own buttons. This allows Apple to maintain a consistent design for user experience without disadvantaging external payment options.

Language requirements

Apple is permitted to prohibit developers from using language that violates existing content standards. However, these standards must be clearly defined. The requirement is intended to prevent developers from using aggressive or misleading language to try to draw more attention to external purchasing options.

Access restrictions for specific developer groups

The original ruling had prohibited Apple from denying certain developer groups the use of external links, including participants in the News Partner Program. The appeals court overturned this restriction. Apple may, in principle, exclude developers participating in VPP or NPP programs, provided this is permissible under the contractual terms.

Court's assessment of the measures taken so far

The appeals court criticized Apple for not implementing an appropriate fee after the initial injunction and instead choosing a model that rendered external links practically unusable. This led to the court's assessment that Apple intentionally acted against the spirit of the injunction. At the same time, the court stated that the district court's complete prohibition of commissions was disproportionate because it would have permanently deprived Apple of any form of compensation.

The injunction remains in effect in principle, with the exception of the points that have now been amended. This means that external links must still be permitted and may not be artificially restricted.

Apple retains control, developers gain leeway

The ruling strikes a new balance. External payment links remain permissible, and developers are given clear guidelines on how to integrate them. Apple is allowed to protect its economic interests by charging a fair commission once it has been determined. The company also retains the ability to enforce design and content guidelines, as long as these do not aim to prevent external payments.

For iOS apps, this means a more stable foundation for alternative payment methods. At the same time, Apple remains a key player, setting the limits within which such methods can be used. The upcoming procedure for determining commissions will be crucial in determining how attractive external payment links will be in the future. (Image: rafapress / DepositPhotos.com)