Apple has submitted its latest proposal for commissions on purchases made outside the App Store, suggesting rates ranging from 5% to 15%. However, Epic Games has made its position clear: it intends to appeal any commission rate above 0%.
The proposal comes amid the ongoing legal battle between Apple and Epic Games, which has prevented Apple from collecting commissions on external purchases since the company was found to have violated a court injunction in April 2025.
Apple was ordered by the District Court on Tuesday to submit a plan outlining potential commission rates for external purchases. Despite pursuing multiple appeals, Apple ultimately filed its proposal on Thursday, submitting it precisely at the 5 p.m. EST deadline.
The latest proposal represents a significant reduction from Apple’s earlier position, which included commission rates of up to 27% on external purchases.
According to Apple’s filing, the District Court has underestimated the costs associated with operating the App Store and the value Apple provides to developers. Nevertheless, the company presented the following proposed rates:
15% for standard apps that are currently subject to a 30% commission on in-app purchases.
10% for apps participating in the Video Partner Program, News Partner Program and Mini Apps Partner Program, as well as subscription renewals.
5% for apps enrolled in the Small Business Program.
Apple argues that the proposed rates would remain competitive compared with its standard in-app purchase commissions. The company also maintains that the rates would allow it to retain a modest profit margin from external transactions.
However, Epic Games continues to oppose Apple's attempt to impose any commission on external purchases. The company has indicated that it will appeal if the court approves any rate above zero, meaning the latest proposal is unlikely to bring the long-running dispute to an immediate conclusion.
Alongside its commission proposal, Apple also filed an Administration Motion for Referral to Settlement Conference. The company argued that a settlement conference could help the two sides reach an agreement and potentially narrow or resolve the remaining issues in the case.
The court's response to Apple's proposed rates will determine whether the company can begin collecting commissions on external purchases again, while Epic's expected appeal could prolong the battle over Apple's App Store payment rules.
App Store Review Is Failing at a Time When It’s Needed Most
-xl.jpg){kind=logo}
Apple’s App Store Review process is facing renewed criticism after another problematic app reportedly made it through the company’s safeguards, raising questions about whether Apple is doing enough to protect users from harmful or fraudulent applications.
Apple has repeatedly highlighted its App Store review system as a key defense against malicious and abusive apps. The company has also told regulators around the world that it is uniquely positioned to maintain a safe and secure app ecosystem. This argument has become particularly important as governments consider requiring Apple to allow third-party app stores on the iPhone.
There is a legitimate concern that opening the platform to rival app stores could result in more fraudulent or harmful applications reaching users. However, if Apple positions its own App Store Review process as the primary safeguard against those risks, the system needs to consistently deliver on that promise.
Repeated Failures Raise Concerns
A recent example highlights the problem. In August 2026, The Independent reportedly found several so-called “nudifying” applications still available through Apple’s App Store, despite countries including the UK taking action against such services.
One reported app allegedly allowed users to upload images and place them into disturbing scenarios, including one described as a “bedroom rape” scene.
Apple subsequently removed the application after being contacted by the newspaper. However, the fact that the app had initially passed the company's review process has raised further concerns about the effectiveness of Apple's safeguards.
The issue is particularly troubling because the app reportedly contained warning signs that may have been visible during the initial review. Its App Store listing allegedly included descriptions and graphic videos related to its functionality.
Can Apple Keep Checking Apps?
Developers can potentially attempt to circumvent Apple's review process by submitting an app that initially appears harmless while keeping certain content or functionality on an external website. Once the application has been approved, developers could potentially alter those external assets or redirect the app to different content.
Preventing this kind of abuse requires more than simply reviewing an application once before it is published. Apple would also need to conduct ongoing checks to ensure that apps remain compliant after approval.
That presents a significant challenge given the enormous number of applications submitted to the App Store. Regularly reviewing every app is expensive and time-consuming, but that difficulty creates a contradiction for Apple.
The company cannot simultaneously argue that its tightly controlled App Store is essential for protecting users while allowing serious violations to remain available until journalists, researchers or users discover them.
The latest incident therefore raises a broader question about Apple's App Store strategy: if Apple wants regulators to trust its review process as a superior safeguard, shouldn't that process be capable of identifying dangerous apps before users have to do it themselves?
Apple’s Latest App Store Commission Proposal Fails to Satisfy Epic Games
