A dispute over what Apple may charge when a user follows an app’s purchase link has become a test of how far the App Store’s payment rules can reach. The fight matters to developers weighing checkout options and to users who may see different ways to pay. The key issue is whether Apple can collect a commission on purchases made outside its system.
Anti-steering rules are App Store policies that limit developers from directing users to purchase outside Apple’s system. Courts are still deciding what fee, if any, is reasonable for those external purchases. The 27% charge is part of a larger legal case, not a rate that applies to every app purchase.
The result could affect the options developers offer and how users move from an app to checkout. It does not settle every question about Apple’s commission on purchases made inside the App Store. For developers, the immediate question is whether an external checkout can remain a meaningful alternative.
Key Takeaways
- The dispute concerns charges on purchases made after users follow external links.
- The district court stopped Apple’s commissions on covered U.S. external purchases.
- Apple’s proposed rates are not a court-approved fee or an agreed settlement.
- The Supreme Court review concerns the contempt ruling.
- The district court still has to address what external-purchase fee, if any, is reasonable.
How Did the Epic Games Case Reach the Supreme Court?
Epic’s 2020 lawsuit followed Apple’s removal of Fortnite after Epic enabled direct in-game purchases. That move turned a dispute over one game into a wider fight about App Store rules. The original case covered broad antitrust claims, but the surviving issue centers on anti-steering rules.
Why Epic sued Apple
Epic Games filed suit in August 2020 after Apple removed Fortnite. The game had let players buy items through Epic’s payment system, bypassing Apple’s payment system. Epic challenged Apple’s 30% revenue cut and limits on third-party marketplaces in iOS.
That dispute became known as the Apple Epic Games antitrust case. Epic argued that Apple’s control over app distribution and payments harmed competition. The claims covered more than links to outside checkout, but most did not succeed at trial.
What the courts ordered
In September 2021, the district court ruled for Apple on nine of Epic’s ten claims. The court rejected claims tied to Apple’s 30% cut and its ban on third-party marketplaces. It still issued an injunction against Apple’s anti-steering rules.
The injunction barred Apple from stopping developers from using in-app links and buttons to direct users to external storefronts. Apple’s Supreme Court petition argues that the order did not clearly cover commissions and should not reach developers outside the case.
The injunction governs in-app links and buttons, not every part of Apple’s business.
A Ninth Circuit panel upheld the district court’s findings in April 2023. The Supreme Court denied Apple’s appeal in January 2024. The injunction changed the rules for links, but it did not itself set a rate for purchases made through them.
What Does the Apple SCOTUS 27 Percent App Store Fee 2026 Dispute Mean?
The 27% figure referred to a specific linked-purchase charge, not Apple’s standard in-App Store commission. Apple applied it to purchases through third-party payment systems within seven days of a user clicking an external link. It was not a charge on every purchase made by an app’s customers.
The district court stopped Apple from charging commissions on covered U.S. external purchases, and Apple has charged none since April 2025. Apple’s commission on purchases made within the App Store is 30%. 
How the 27% charge triggered contempt
In April 2025, the district court found Apple in civil contempt and ordered it to stop the external-purchase commissions. The dispute is about the injunction’s reach and the fee Apple may charge for purchases that follow an external link.
Apple argued that a commission pays for its intellectual-property-protected tools, technologies, and services. A third-party payment processor may also charge a separate fee. That payment fee depends on the processor and payment method, and it is not Apple’s commission.
What Apple proposed for external purchases
Apple proposed three commission rates for external purchases. The rates differ by app or transaction type:
| App or transaction category | Proposed external-purchase commission | Covered category or condition |
|---|---|---|
| Standard apps | 15% | Subject to a 30% in-app purchase commission |
| VPP, NPP, MPP and subscription renewals | 10% | Those named programs and renewals |
| Small Business Program apps | 5% | Apps in that program |
The proposed tiers do not amount to a settlement with Epic. The case is not settled, and the district court must decide what fee, if any, is reasonable. A proposed rate is not the same as a rate approved by the court.
What Happens Next in the Supreme Court and Lower Courts?
The Supreme Court has agreed to review Apple’s contempt challenge, but it has not set the fee for external purchases. The two court tasks differ: the Ninth Circuit sent the reasonable-fee question back to the district court, while contempt is before the Supreme Court. The larger Apple Epic appeal now centers on the contempt ruling and the permitted charge for external purchases.
The Supreme Court review addresses whether the contempt ruling can stand. The lower-court fee process addresses what commission, if any, Apple may charge for covered purchases.
The Supreme Court is reviewing contempt, while the district court handles the fee question.
The case has several key filings and court steps:
- June 30, 2026: The Supreme Court agreed to hear Apple’s challenge during its 2026 term.
- August 12-13, 2026: A brief stay paused the order for about 24 hours, then expired.
- September 14 and 23, 2026: Apple filed its request to overturn the Ninth Circuit ruling; the DOJ filed a brief supporting parts of the contempt order while challenging its treatment of the 27% charge.
The Supreme Court docket records the review and its filings. Until the courts act, developers should treat the proposed rates as proposals rather than settled payment terms.
Conclusion
The key takeaway is that a fee proposal and a court-approved commission are not the same thing. Apple’s proposed percentages are not a final rate set by a court, and the dispute still concerns whether external checkout can work as a real option.
Developers can monitor the district court’s fee-setting proceedings and check current App Store rules before changing checkout flows. Users may see different payment choices if developers adjust their apps, but the legal result is not yet final. Developers can make better checkout decisions by checking the court’s latest order before updating their payment links.
FAQ
Does Apple’s App Store commission apply to physical goods bought through apps?
No, Apple’s App Store commission at issue here concerns digital goods and services, not physical items bought through an app. A delivered meal or shipped book is a physical purchase. The legal dispute focuses on digital purchases and how apps may direct users to pay outside Apple’s system. A separate business arrangement may still affect how a physical order is handled.
Can a third-party payment processor charge a separate fee on an external purchase?
Yes, a third-party payment processor may charge a separate fee on an external purchase. That fee is distinct from Apple’s commission and comes from the company handling the payment. The amount depends on the provider and payment method. For example, a card payment and a different payment option may have different processing costs.
Does Apple charge a commission just because someone downloads a free app?
No, downloading a free app by itself does not trigger the commission discussed in this case. The dispute concerns paid digital goods or services bought through an app or after a user follows an external link. A free download and a later purchase are separate events. A user can download an app without buying anything in it.
What evidence could the district court consider when setting a reasonable external-purchase rate?
The district court can weigh evidence about what services and costs support a reasonable external-purchase rate. Apple submitted fact and expert evidence with its proposal, and Epic can respond to that material. The court decides what is reasonable under the order. Its decision may depend on how it views the evidence and the scope of the injunction.
Will the Supreme Court’s decision automatically change what users pay for apps?
No, the Supreme Court’s decision will not automatically change app prices. Any effect on users depends on the ruling and on developers’ pricing choices. Developers may keep prices the same, change them, or offer different ways to pay. The court decides the legal issue, while each developer sets prices for its own app and services.
