The long-running dispute between Apple and Epic Games over App Store commissions It has entered a decisive phase that goes far beyond Fortnite and video games. After more than five years of lawsuits, appeals, and cross-ruling rulings, the Cupertino company has opted to take the case back to the United States Supreme Court to try to halt the restrictions imposed on its business model.
At the heart of the controversy is the the 27% commission that Apple intends to charge The issue stems from purchases made through external payment methods, outside the App Store, a figure that the courts consider incompatible with the court order mandating the opening of the ecosystem. What began as a fight between two tech giants has become a landmark case closely watched by regulators and developers worldwide, including in Spain and the rest of Europe.
Five years of legal battle: how the clash between Apple and Epic began
The story begins in August de 2020When Epic Games decided to circumvent the App Store rules and introduce its own payment system in Fortnite to buy V-Bucks without going through Apple's standard 30% commission, the response was swift: Fortnite was immediately removed from the store and Epic filed a lawsuit accusing Apple of monopolistic practices and abuse of its dominant market position.
The first major legal milestone came in 2021 SeptemberA federal court in the Northern District of California determined that Apple was not a monopoly in the strict sense, but did find evidence of anticompetitive conduct. The judge ordered the company to allow developers to link from their apps to external payment methods, without blocking or penalizing those links, a decision that is part of the legal battle with Apple and Google.
Apple took the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which in January 2024 It refused to review it, upholding the obligation to enable external payments. From then on, the tech company was forced to change its policy and, on paper, open a door it had previously kept completely closed.
That door, however, opened with a trap: in In 2024, Apple activated a 27% commission. Regarding purchases made through external links, the tax was reduced to 12% in the second year for certain small businesses. The practical result was that many developers continued to face a total cost very similar to the original 30%, a situation that Epic and other industry players interpreted as an attempt to undermine the court order.
Tensions escalated another step in April 2025When a federal court declared Apple in civil contempt for that commission. December 2025The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the contempt ruling, noting that the 27% rate "had a prohibitive effect" and rendered the purported opening to alternative payments useless.
The 27% commission: complying with the letter, but not the spirit
The crux of the controversy revolves around whether Apple can to charge a nearly equivalent commission to its internal payments for purchases processed outside its system. The judges have made it clear that the company is entitled to some compensation for the use of its intellectual property and infrastructure, but only if the amounts are "genuinely and reasonably" linked to the costs of coordinating those external links.
In practice, the structure proposed by Apple forces developers who use third-party payments to bear their own processing costs (around 2-3%) and, in addition, Additional 27% required by AppleIn many cases, the sum equals or exceeds the original 30%, making the alternative unattractive from an economic point of view.
Epic Games has maintained from the outset that this scheme is blatantly anti-competitive. Tim Sweeney, the company's CEO, has gone so far as to call the move an attempt to "dictate every aspect" of external links, placing them far from where the user actually makes the purchase decision and imposing terms and conditions that, according to Epic, completely circumvent any legal recourse.
Other relevant firms, such as Spotify, Kindle, or PatreonThese policies have also been criticized, although very few developers have dared to make extensive use of external links for fear of retaliation or due to regulatory uncertainty. Epic points out that only a few "brave" players have tried to take advantage of the window opened by the rulings, in a context still very much controlled by Apple.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals agreed on the essence of these complaints: in its view, the 27% commission "Defeats the purpose" to allow alternative payments. That's why it upheld the contempt ruling and sent the matter back to a lower court to calculate what fee, if any, Apple can charge on third-party purchases without violating the original 2021 order.
Apple's latest move: headed to the Supreme Court
After being rejected in March 2026 In response to their request for a new full review by the Ninth Circuit, Apple has opted for the only path left to them in the United States: to go back to the Supreme CourtThe company intends for the high court to review the civil contempt declaration and, above all, to clarify to what extent judges can limit the commissions that a platform charges for transactions carried out outside its payment system.
Meanwhile, Apple has requested a stay of execution of the appeals court ruling. In a document filed on April 3, the company asks that the plan allowing the Northern District of California to set a [unclear - possibly "a specific amount" or "a specific amount"] be frozen. "reasonable" commission for purchases linked through external links. The argument is that imposing a specific fee now could force them to completely restructure the App Store's revenue, only to have to change it again if the Supreme Court were to modify the ruling.
Apple's proposal involves maintain the current system on a temporary basisThis includes the possibility of adding links to external payments without a new defined fee, while the Supreme Court decides whether or not to review the contempt of court case. The intention is to buy time and avoid having to implement several consecutive reforms in a business that, according to the company itself, is key to its bottom line.
Epic Games immediately challenged this move. Company sources described it as "another delaying tactic" aimed at preventing firm limits from being placed on Apple's ability to set fees for third-party payments. From their perspective, each month of delay reinforces a status quo in which the App Store continues to wield enormous bargaining power over developers large and small.
If the Ninth Circuit accepts Apple's plan, the hearing on fees will be postponed pending the Supreme Court's decision. If it rejects it, the The district court will begin calculating the new fees. Meanwhile, the tech company is simultaneously pursuing its appeal before the Supreme Court. In any case, if the Supreme Court again declines the review, the current ruling of the appeals court will prevail.
Apple's arguments against Epic's accusations
From a legal standpoint, Apple argues that She should never have been declared in contempt because the 2021 order did not explicitly specify which fees it could or could not charge. It argues that the courts overstepped their bounds by reinterpreting that order to censor the 27% fee, which, in its view, amounts to rewriting the App Store's economic balance without an explicit mandate.
The company insists that its commission is not limited to covering the cost of payment processing. According to them, the percentage compensates the entire App Store infrastructure: from the hosting and distribution of applications...to development tools, security review, editorial promotion, and the ability to reach hundreds of millions of iPhone and iPad users worldwide.
Apple also questions whether the ruling's effects extend to all developers on the US platform. It argues that, in a case brought by a single plaintiff, the remedy should be applied more narrowly and not become a blanket regulation of the App Store without the usual legislative or regulatory process.
Epic, for its part, emphasizes that The courts have been ruling consistently Epic Games is challenging Apple's attempts to maintain, in one way or another, commissions considered abusive. The video game company emphasizes that the court decisions affect not only Epic, but the entire ecosystem of developers who depend on the App Store to reach their customers.
Also in the background is the return of Fortnite on iPhones in the United States, after years away from the store, and his return to Google Play worldwideThe move could be interpreted as a gesture of détente, but the reality is that the underlying battle—external payments, commissions, and control of the ecosystem—remains wide open and is being fought both in the courts and in the offices of regulators.
Google, market pressure and the impact on the ecosystem
While Apple pursues legal action, the rest of the industry is taking action. Google recently reached an agreement with Epic Games for a similar lawsuit linked to the Play Store, in which it committed to reducing its base commission to 20% and making the use of alternative payment systems and third-party app stores within Android more flexible.
That agreement doesn't resolve Apple's case, but it does act as signal for the market and for regulatorsIf a large platform like Google agrees to cut its percentages, it becomes more difficult to justify to courts and competition authorities that 30% —or 27% on external payments— should remain the unchangeable norm of the sector.
Beyond the specific figures, the Apple vs. Epic dispute serves as a barometer to measure the extent to which major platforms can continue to capture a substantial share of the value generated by third-party applications. At stake is not just the video game business, but an entire ecosystem of subscription apps, cloud services, productivity tools, or content platforms that they monetize through digital payments.
The potential impact also extends to emerging models such as conversational agents and chatbotswhich are beginning to intermediate a growing volume of transactions. The question of who has the right to collect a commission when a transaction is initiated in an app, redirected to a browser, and completed on the developer's website is not trivial, and this case is helping to outline the first key principles.
For Apple, the outcome could directly impact the weight of its services business, one of the company's growth pillars in recent years. For developers, the result will define how much real room they have to negotiate terms, optimize margins, and establish a more direct relationship with their users without relying so heavily on the fees imposed by the store.
Europe, Spain and the Digital Markets Act
Although the legal battle is being fought in US courts, Europe and Spain are watching the case very closely.Since March 2024, the European Union has had the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a regulatory package that identifies Apple as an "access gatekeeper" and obliges it to allow third-party app stores and alternative payment methods in its ecosystem.
The European Commission has already shown that it is willing to act: in 2025 it imposed a 500 million euro fine for practices deemed restrictive regarding external links and App Store rules that, in Brussels' opinion, unfairly limited competition. Furthermore, it has threatened daily fines of up to €50 million if it detects further violations.
In response, Apple has announced changes specific to the European market, including the possibility of installing alternative stores and less stringent conditions for links to external payments. However, the debate continues about what commissions can be associated with these new channels It is still alive, and the example of 27% in the United States is an unavoidable reference for community regulators.
For Spanish users, this struggle could eventually translate into More payment options within appsPossible price reductions or, at least, greater transparency regarding who receives each portion of their payments. However, new hybrid subscription models, direct web payments, or loyalty programs outside the App Store could also emerge if developers seek to move part of their business away from Apple's control.
For developers and startups with a presence in Spain or the rest of the EU, regulatory liberalization offers an opportunity to improve margins and have more control over customer relationships. But the risks don't disappear: Apple continues to manage the visibility and positioning within the App StoreAnd there is a fear that it will preferentially reward those who choose to continue using its native payment system.
Why this case matters so much to app founders and developers
Far from being an issue exclusive to tech giants, what is decided in this battle will affect the day-to-day lives of startups, indie studios and SaaS companies that rely on iOS to reach their audience. Every commission point in the App Store can mean the difference between a viable business model and a project that never gets off the ground.
In apps based on recurring subscriptionA significant reduction in fees can improve profitability from the first month and allow for more flexible pricing strategies to attract and retain users. Conversely, if high percentages are also maintained on external payments, companies will have less room to adjust prices or invest in customer acquisition.
The dispute also redefines the negotiating power with the platformsUntil now, Apple's position in iOS was virtually immovable: anyone wanting to be part of the ecosystem had to abide by its rules. However, court rulings in the United States, European pressure with the DMA, and Google's agreement with Epic are opening a window to question this status quo and explore alternatives such as proprietary app stores, better-integrated websites, or direct agreements with users.
For many founders, the lesson is that the Regulatory uncertainty is now another variable in the businessJust as revenue or user acquisition scenarios are projected, it is now necessary to consider different commission assumptions, from the current model to scenarios with significantly lower rates, both in the United States and in Europe.
In this context, keeping up with the evolution of the Apple vs. Epic case is not just a matter of technological curiosity, but a way to anticipate how they will be able to monetize their digital products in the coming years, which channels to prioritize, and what portion of the generated value they will actually be able to capture compared to the major platforms.
With the conflict escalating again to Supreme Court of the United States And clashing with the European regulatory framework, the battle between Apple and Epic has become a testing ground for the limits of a platform's right to charge for intermediation, even when payment occurs outside its system. The outcome will shape the economics of thousands of apps worldwide and determine whether the commission model we've known for over a decade remains valid or begins to crumble in markets like Spain.
