Apple’s 15% External-Payment Proposal Is Not the U.S. Rule Yet: What iOS Developers Should Do

Short answer: as of August 14, 2026, an app on the U.S. App Store storefront can include buttons, external links, or other calls to action that point users to another purchase method without needing Apple's External Purchase Link Entitlement. And under the current court posture in Epic Games v. Apple, Apple cannot charge a commission on linked-out purchases until the district court approves an appropriate fee.

Apple's newly reported 15% / 10% / 5% fee structure is a proposal filed with the court, not the fee schedule developers are paying today.

That distinction matters. Teams deciding whether to add web checkout should not behave as if a 15% Apple charge has already arrived — but they also should not build a business model that only works if Apple's current 0% commission on U.S. linked-out purchases lasts forever.

The 30-second answer

The useful mental model is therefore not “Apple cut its fee to 15%.” It is “the current Apple commission on U.S. linked-out purchases is zero while a future court-approved fee is being litigated.”

What Apple actually proposed

On August 13, The Verge reported details from Apple's new remand filing in its long-running case with Epic Games. According to that filing, Apple is asking the court to allow a tiered fee on digital purchases completed through external links:

• 15% for purchases in “standard apps”
• 10% for apps in the Video Partner Program, News Partner Program, and Mini Apps Partner Program, plus subscription renewals
• 5% for apps in the Small Business Program

Those numbers are important, but their legal status is more important: they are Apple's requested rates, not an approved App Store rule for U.S. link-outs.

The same report says Apple told the court that its “necessary costs” for external purchases under the Ninth Circuit's definition would be essentially zero, while arguing that a higher charge would compensate it for some of the wider tools, technologies, and services it provides developers. Epic has already said it plans to oppose the proposal and expects to submit expert evidence.

So a screenshot or headline saying “Apple will charge 15%” is missing the most decision-relevant fact: the judge has not yet approved that fee.

Why today's 0% Apple commission may not be permanent

There is another easy-to-miss point in the Ninth Circuit's December 2025 opinion.

The appeals court upheld the core contempt findings against Apple and agreed that Apple's previous 27% commission had a prohibitive effect. But it also found that a permanent blanket ban on every commission was too broad as a contempt sanction.

The Ninth Circuit told the district court it could determine an appropriate fee tied to genuinely and reasonably necessary coordination costs and, in some circumstances, intellectual property directly used for linked-out transactions. It also said Apple should receive no commission for security and privacy features it offers for external links and should not charge a commission at all until the district court approves an appropriate fee.

That creates an unusual middle state:

1. Developers have a real U.S. link-out option today.
2. Apple's commission on those linked-out purchases is currently zero.
3. The appeals court has nevertheless allowed the lower court to consider a future fee.
4. The amount and structure of that future fee are still unresolved.

For product planning, point 4 is the one worth designing around.

The fee-sensitivity calculation to run before changing checkout

Do not compare “0% Apple fee” with an in-app purchase commission and stop there. External checkout has its own costs, and a court-approved Apple fee could later be layered on top.

A simple planning equation is:

External-checkout contribution = sale price − payment processing − web/fraud/refund/tax/support costs − any future court-approved Apple fee

The table below shows only the possible Apple component under the rates Apple has proposed. It deliberately excludes processor and operating costs because those vary by provider and business.

This is not a forecast of what the court will approve. It is a sensitivity test: if external checkout only makes sense at a 0% Apple commission, the implementation is exposed to the unresolved court process. If it still works at 5%, 10%, and 15%, the business case is much less fragile.

A better go/no-go framework

Before shipping a U.S. web-checkout path, model at least four cases:

Then add your actual payment processor, support, tax, fraud, refund, and web costs to each case. The decision should be based on the whole checkout stack, not one headline percentage.

What to implement now without betting on the lawsuit

1. Make the U.S. checkout path storefront-aware

Apple's App Review Guidelines explicitly distinguish the United States storefront from other storefronts. Do not treat a U.S. rule as a global permission switch.

If an app is distributed internationally, payment-routing logic, copy, and review notes should reflect the storefronts where each option is actually permitted.

2. Treat Apple's external fee as configuration, not architecture

The worst implementation would bake “Apple fee = 0 forever” into pricing, entitlement logic, or reporting assumptions.

Instead, make a potential Apple link-out fee an input to the business model. A court order or App Store rule change should require changing a parameter and checkout copy — not rebuilding the product.

3. Run 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% sensitivity before changing prices

This is especially useful for low-priced subscriptions and digital items, where a few percentage points can materially change contribution margin.

The goal is not to guess the judge's eventual number. It is to know where the web-checkout option stops making economic sense.

4. Keep processor costs separate from Apple costs

“No Apple commission” does not mean “no transaction cost.” A web purchase can still involve card or wallet processing, chargebacks, refunds, fraud tooling, taxes, customer support, and checkout maintenance.

Keep those lines separate in the model. Otherwise a future Apple fee can appear to be the cause of costs that were already present.

5. Measure the funnel before assuming everyone will leave IAP

An outside checkout can reduce platform commission exposure but add steps: browser handoff, sign-in, payment entry, and return to the app. The only useful answer is the one measured on the app's own funnel.

Track, at minimum:

• users who see the external-purchase option
• users who click it
• users who reach checkout
• completed purchases
• refunds and chargebacks
• support contacts related to access after payment

A cheaper transaction that converts substantially worse can be a worse business outcome.

6. Do not tell customers “Apple now charges 15%”

That statement is not accurate as of August 14. Apple's 15% figure is part of a court proposal. Customer-facing copy, investor notes, pricing pages, and internal forecasts should distinguish current rule from requested future fee.

7. Re-check the primary rules before each release

This area has changed repeatedly through court orders, appeals, App Review Guideline edits, and regional regulation. Before shipping or materially changing a purchase flow, re-check Apple's current App Review Guidelines and the relevant U.S. court orders rather than relying on a months-old implementation guide.

Confirmed facts vs. unresolved questions

Confirmed as of August 14, 2026

• Apple's App Review Guideline 3.1.1(a) says U.S.-storefront apps do not need an External Purchase Link Entitlement to include buttons, external links, or other calls to action to alternate purchase methods.
• The Ninth Circuit said Apple should not charge a commission for linked-out purchases until the district court approves an appropriate fee.
• Apple has proposed a 15% / 10% / 5% structure, according to its August 13 filing as reported by The Verge.
• The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear Apple's separate appeal concerning the contempt ruling. Its current docket shows Apple's merits brief due September 14, 2026, and Epic's due November 13, 2026.

Still unsettled

• Whether the district court will approve Apple's proposed rates at all
• Whether an approved fee will use the same tiers or percentages
• Exactly which costs the court will permit Apple to recover
• The final mechanics around attribution, reporting, and collection of any approved fee
• How the Supreme Court's separate contempt appeal could affect the broader enforcement picture

The Supreme Court case is worth watching, but it should not be confused with a court approval of Apple's 15% proposal. They are related parts of the same litigation history, not the same decision.

What to watch next

Three signals matter more than another round of headlines:

1. Epic's opposition and expert evidence. The parties are now fighting over what costs and compensation the Ninth Circuit's framework actually permits.
2. The district court's fee order. This is the event that can turn a proposed percentage into an approved one.
3. Apple's developer documentation. If the legal position changes, watch App Review Guidelines and related developer terms for the operational rules teams must implement.

Separately, the Supreme Court docket for Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc., No. 25-1311, will show the timetable for Apple's contempt appeal.

Conclusion

The actionable takeaway is less dramatic than the 15% headline: U.S. external checkout remains available, and Apple is not currently permitted to collect a commission on linked-out purchases before a district-court-approved fee exists. Apple's new percentages are a proposal.

But “0% today” should be treated as a legal state, not a permanent pricing assumption. The safest product decision is to build a storefront-aware checkout, model the economics at 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15%, and keep any future Apple fee configurable.

That way, the business does not have to predict the court correctly to make a sensible product decision now.

This article is an operational explainer, not legal advice.

Sources

• Apple — App Review Guidelines
• Apple — May 1, 2025 U.S. App Review Guideline update
• Ninth Circuit — Epic Games, Inc. v. Apple Inc., No. 25-2935 (opinion via Justia)
• The Verge — Apple and Epic argue over how much Apple should get from purchases made outside the App Store, Aug. 13, 2026
• U.S. Supreme Court — Apple Inc. v. Epic Games, Inc., docket No. 25-1311
• Reuters — U.S. Supreme Court to hear Apple appeal of contempt in Epic Games lawsuit, June 30, 2026