{"id":70316,"date":"2026-07-13T20:28:21","date_gmt":"2026-07-13T18:28:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/?p=70316"},"modified":"2026-07-13T20:29:07","modified_gmt":"2026-07-13T18:29:07","slug":"app-store-provision-epic-accuses-apple-of-delay","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.apfelpatient.de\/en\/news\/app-store-provision-epic-wirft-apple-verzoegerung-vor","title":{"rendered":"App Store commission: Epic accuses Apple of delay"},"content":{"rendered":"

Apple intends to suspend proceedings regarding future App Store commissions until the Supreme Court has ruled. Epic has objected, calling it the third attempt at the same tactic. The curious thing is that, as long as there is no ruling, Apple charges zero percent on purchases made through third-party platforms.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The legal battle between Apple and Epic Games is now five years old and has entered a phase where the question is no longer whether a penalty will be imposed, but only a specific number. At the beginning of July, Apple requested that the proceedings before the lower court be suspended<\/a> until the Supreme Court has ruled on the penalty payment. Epic has now filed its response \u2013 arguing that this very delay is Apple's true objective.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What the dispute is now about<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The starting point dates back to 2021. At that time, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ordered Apple to allow developers to direct their users to payment methods outside the App Store. Apple implemented this \u2013 allowing external links, but demanding a 27 percent commission and stipulating precisely how the links could look.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The court deemed this implementation a violation of its own order and imposed a civil fine for contempt of court. Apple countered that the original order never explicitly prohibited commissions on purchases made outside the App Store. The appeals court upheld the fine but overturned the complete ban on commissions as excessive: Apple is indeed permitted to charge a fee \u2013 but only one that reflects the actual costs incurred in brokering the external links.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This leaves exactly one question open, and that lies with the lower court: How high can this fee be?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Apple currently charges zero percent<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The crucial point is easily overlooked in the routine proceedings. As long as the lower court hasn't established a precedent, the following still applies: Apple is not allowed to charge a commission on purchases made through external links. Since spring 2025, apps in the US App Store have been permitted to include buttons, links, and purchase prompts to their own online stores without an approval process \u2013 and Apple receives nothing from this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Every month the proceedings are suspended perpetuates this situation. Apple is therefore requesting a stay of proceedings precisely for the company that would generate revenue again.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Epic's accusation: the third attempt<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

Epic describes the motion<\/a> as Apple's third attempt to delay the hearing on the future fee, citing a finding by the appeals court: even if the Supreme Court rules in Apple's favor, the commission will still have to be negotiated \u2013 and this process would likely look the same as it does now.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The crucial point from Epic's perspective lies in the scope of the appeal accepted by the Supreme Court<\/a>. The court is examining only the narrow question of the standard by which a coercive fine may be imposed. It explicitly declined to accept Apple's second question\u2014regarding the scope of the original injunction. Therefore, the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over the amount of the commission.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Added to this is the time factor: A decision from Washington might not be expected until June 2027. Until then, the question of the fee would remain unresolved \u2013 and the legal uncertainty for developers would persist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What happens next this week<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The agreed-upon schedule<\/a> stipulates that Apple will submit its reply to Epic's response later today, July 13th. The court will then make its decision.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The consequence is strictly time-bound: If the judge rejects the request, Apple must submit its proposal for the commission on external purchases within 24 hours. If she grants it, the proceedings are suspended until the Supreme Court has ruled.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This changes nothing for developers in Europe<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The entire dispute concerns the US App Store. Developers in Germany and Austria operate under a completely different regime: they are governed by the Digital Markets Act, and Apple has established a separate fee structure for the EU market, which has long been a point of contention for the European developer community<\/a>. The decision made in California has no direct impact on this.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Neither of these applies to Switzerland: As a non-EU country, it falls under neither the DMA nor the US procedure \u2013 Apple's regular worldwide rules apply there.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why Apple accepts zero<\/h2>\n\n\n\n

At first glance, Apple's approach makes no sense: The company is fighting to delay a case that would bring it money. However, the calculation behind it is understandable. What the lower court would ultimately award would be a mere reimbursement of costs \u2013 meager compared to the 27 percent Apple originally demanded.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If the Supreme Court overturns the penalty, the legal basis for the entire fee issue could shift. Apple is essentially betting that a year without revenue costs less than a permanently fixed minimum commission. Whether the court agrees with this calculation will be decided in the coming days. (Image: Shutterstock \/ Volodymyr TVERDOKHLIB)<\/p>\n\n\n\n