This article may contain affiliate links. Learn more on our Partner Program page.
How did Apple arrive at a 15 percent commission for purchases made through external links? Apple must answer this question with internal documents in the Epic Games case – and this is precisely what the two sides are now arguing about. Epic accuses Apple of delaying the release of the documents, while Apple has named two deadlines in November.
The basis for this is a joint status report in case 4:20-cv-05640-YGR (Dct. 1720), which Epic Games and Apple filed on October 9th with the Federal District Court in Oakland. Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers is presiding over the case. At its core, the case concerns Apple's proposal from August to charge up to 15 percent commission on purchases made through external links in the US. Before Epic responds, the company is to be allowed to see how Apple calculated these rates.
Key Facts at a Glance
- Apple had to submit all non-protected documents relating to the creation of the commission proposal by August 24th; Epic only counts around 55 relevant documents.
- Apple has now agreed to search the documents of 27 people and aims to substantially complete the disclosure by November 1st or 25th.
- Epic is demanding that the court hand over everything by November 1st, including documents relating to Apple's commission models outside the US.
- According to both sides, Epic's 60-day period for responding to the commission proposal has not yet started.
What Epic accuses Apple of
The deadline for the first delivery expired on August 24. According to Epic, Apple had only provided around 55 relevant documents by then, 16 of which were heavily redacted and four duplicates, and no actual business documents. According to its own list, Apple withheld only 15 documents. A further delivery on September 24 comprised 21 drafts, the earliest of which dated June 19.
Epic sees this as a de facto standstill. Apple's request to suspend the proceedings until the Supreme Court's decision failed, and it is now using the evidence gathering process to slow things down. Criticism is also being leveled at Apple's search terms: key terms such as costs, profit and loss statement, or the court order itself are missing.
Epic is therefore requesting that the court compel Apple to provide immediate, ongoing disclosure, which must be fully completed by November 1st.
Apple's commitments and dates
Apple maintains that it has fulfilled its obligations under the initial deadline. The company has since agreed to respond to all 16 requests from Epic, to search the records of all 27 individuals named by Epic, and to use Epic's search terms for this purpose. These include Phil Schiller, who relinquished control of the App Store in August, and two other managers whom Apple hired on September 21.
Apple outlines two stages for completion:
| Target group | Publication essentially completed by |
|---|---|
| Seven people whom Epic considers key | November 1, 2026 |
| The remaining 27 people | November 25, 2026 |
Apple explicitly reserves the right to review search terms and the group of people involved at a later date. According to Apple, one of the individuals is on parental leave, which could complicate the disclosure process. Apple rejects the accusation of delay, stating that Epic took three weeks to process its requests and eleven days to identify the individuals and search terms, and only raised the demand for disclosure after November 1st in the draft status report.
Apple argues that the decision-making process was stricter this time than with the previous 27 percent rate. The appeals court ruling limited the scope for discretion, and Apple relied heavily on external economists. Epic has already received the underlying business data, including information on 2.1 million apps and 1.7 million in-app products.
Commission models outside the USA
One of the points of contention concerns documents relating to Apple's commissions for external links in other countries. Epic wants them without geographical restrictions, arguing that these models influenced the decision to prioritize the US. Apple has agreed to release the relevant documents from the files of the four decision-makers without any country limitations. Only documents from abroad with no connection to the US or the decision-making process will be excluded.
For developers in Germany and Austria, this is not an abstract issue. Revised App Store terms and conditions have been in effect in the EU since October 1st, stipulating a 15 percent commission for purchases made through external links, with a reduced rate of 10 percent. This is the same standard rate that Apple also proposes for the US. Switzerland is not subject to these EU regulations.
What the dispute means for the timetable
Both sides note in the report that Epic's 60-day period for responding to the commission proposal has not yet begun. This deadline stems from the timeline agreed upon in May; a hearing will only take place after Epic has submitted its response. Apple and Epic plan to submit their next status report in two weeks, around October 23.
The case continues in parallel before the Supreme Court. Epic has until November 13th to respond, after the US Department of Justice only partially supported Apple in a statement. If the Supreme Court overturns the finding regarding the 27 percent commission, the basis for the commission claim would also disappear.
Why arguments about files reveal more than those about deadlines
I believe the international models are the truly interesting point in this dispute. Apple itself says it relied heavily on external experts when developing the new rates, while simultaneously refusing to release documents relating to these international models to a select group. Epic's search terms clearly focus on costs. If the internal documents show that the 15 percent fee was essentially adopted from existing models like the European one, Epic would have an argument that the rate is not derived from the costs of the App Store.
I don't expect the court to decide on the amount of the US commission this year. Even according to Apple's own timeline, the documents won't be available until the end of November, and Epic's 60-day period hasn't even started yet. Until then, purchases made through external links in the US will remain commission-free. This doesn't change anything for apps you use in your home country, as EU regulations already apply there.
Should Apple ultimately be allowed to charge the same 15 percent commission in the US as in the EU – or would a significantly lower rate be a fairer solution in your opinion? Let us know in the comments what rate you think is appropriate.
