Apple and Epic agree on schedule Apfelpatient

This article may contain affiliate links. Learn more on our Partner Program page.

Make Apfelpatient a preferred source One click – and you'll see us more often on Google

Following the Supreme Court's rejection of Apple's emergency appeal, Apple and Epic Games are heading for a new round in their App Store dispute. Both parties submitted a joint timetable to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on May 15th, outlining how a new commission rate for outbound links will be negotiated. It could be five months before the next status hearing.

This move is a direct consequence of the Supreme Court's decision of May 5, 2026, to deny Apple's request to stay the lower court's ruling. This means Apple remains obligated to negotiate a new fee structure with Epic for external purchase links in iOS apps. Apple had attempted to have the case heard by the highest US court via an emergency motion – without success. The now-presented timeline structures the coming weeks and months so that the district court can ultimately establish a concrete cap on commissions.

The agreed process in five stages

The joint submission from both parties contains a multi-stage plan. Apple is taking the first step: Within 45 days, the company must submit a so-called proffer to the court – a binding offer of evidence in the form of documents, witness statements, or other credible evidence. In a maximum of 30 pages, Apple must explain what commission it intends to charge on linked-out purchases and what criteria it uses to calculate it.

For up to ten days after the proffer is issued, Apple is obligated to provide Epic with all non-privileged documents that were considered in the decision-making process. This includes internal proposals regarding the fee structure as well as a privilege log, i.e., a list of documents that Apple is withholding for legal reasons.

Within five days, Apple must meet with Epic to review this privilege log. Epic can then flag up to ten percent of the documents listed therein and submit them for independent third-party review.

Once Apple's proffer is filed or the document handover is complete - whichever occurs later - Epic has 60 days to respond. Within this period, the game developer must submit its own response, also limited to a maximum of 30 pages and supported by evidence in case objections are raised. Apple then has another 30 days to submit a final reply, which is limited to 15 pages. Only after this will the court schedule a status hearing or decide on further action.

Approximately five months until the next appointment

If all deadlines are fully exhausted, this results in a time window of approximately 150 days, or about five months, before the district court even reconvenes. For Apple, this is a considerable delay, because until then, the current practice remains in effect – developers are allowed to place external paid links, Apple is not allowed to charge a commission on them, and it is not allowed to dictate how the links should be structured.

Whether this deadline is in Apple's best interest is unclear. On the one hand, it further delays the final determination of commissions. On the other hand, every day without Apple commission on external purchases is a financial disadvantage for the company. Epic CEO Tim Sweeney had already stated after the Supreme Court ruling that the period of delaying tactics was over.

The real point of contention: 27 percent or less

The central question remains whether Apple is even allowed to charge a commission on purchases made outside the App Store. Following the 2021 ruling, Apple introduced a 27 percent fee if users made a purchase within seven days of clicking an external link. For developers in the Small Business Program, the fee was 12 percent instead of the usual 15 percent.

In April 2025, the court ruled this arrangement inconsistent with the original ruling. Apple's emergency motion against the subsequent tightening of the rules failed, meaning developers have since been able to refer to external payment options without Apple taking a cut. The exact amount of a permissible commission in the future is precisely what the district court is expected to clarify in the coming months.

Six years of legal history

The dispute began in 2020 when Epic Games integrated its own payment system into Fortnite, attempting to circumvent Apple's 30 percent commission. Apple removed the game from the App Store, and Epic sued. In 2021, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that while Apple did not have a monopoly on the smartphone app market, it was violating California antitrust law. The key ruling: Apple can no longer prohibit developers from indicating alternative payment methods outside the App Store.

In the following years, Apple attempted to circumvent this requirement through the aforementioned 27 percent rule and strict guidelines on link creation. The court deemed this a violation of the spirit of the ruling in 2025. With the now-agreed timeline, a clearly structured process is in place for the first time to determine a legally defensible commission rate.

What consequences the procedure may have

The implications of the proceedings extend beyond the immediate conflict with Epic. Should the court set a low commission on linked-out purchases or eliminate the fee altogether, it would affect all developers in the US App Store. Other major providers like Spotify, Microsoft, and Amazon had already taken advantage of the original ruling from the outset.

For Apple, this is a financial cornerstone of its services business. The exact amount of the potential revenue loss is currently impossible to quantify because it's unclear how many users actually utilize external payment options. What is certain, however, is that the next 150 days will reveal an unusual amount of information to Apple – both in Proffer and in the underlying internal pricing documents. (Image: Shutterstock / niroworld)