The dispute between Apple and Epic Games for the control of the External payments in the App Store This is entering a particularly delicate phase for the Cupertino company. After several partial defeats in US courts, Apple is taking steps to prevent the immediate implementation of court-ordered changes that require it to make its payment system more flexible.
The tech giant is trying to gain some breathing room while it decides what fees, if any, it can charge for purchases made by users outside its integrated payment system. This strategy, focused on curbing the links to alternative payment methods Within the apps, it has implications that go beyond the United States and are being closely watched from Europe.
Apple appeals to the Supreme Court to stop external payments
Apple has filed a motion for the Supreme Court of the United States suspend the order requiring it to allow links to external payment systems within iOS apps. This order comes from the Northern District Court of California, which in 2021 determined that the company must open the door to alternative payment methods and stop applying its traditional commission to those transactions.
The ruling was reviewed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which largely upheld the lower court's decision. The judges concluded that some of Apple's practices in the App Store had a clearly anti-competitive natureespecially regarding the obligation to use their payment system and the ban on any link or reference to external charges.
Apple responded by appealing and attempting to reopen the case, but the Ninth Circuit refused to grant a new hearing. Subsequently, the company appealed to the Supreme Court, which in early 2024 decided not to review the merits of the case, upholding the requirement to provide external links within apps.
This legal context explains Apple's new move: now it's not so much contesting the principle of the ruling as the timing and manner in which it should be implemented. In its motion, the company argues that implementing the required changes now could seriously affect their business model, and demands that the measures be frozen while the Supreme Court decides whether or not to become involved in the litigation again.
A direct showdown with Epic Games and App Store commissions
The root of the current battle dates back to August 2020, when Epic Games introduced in Fortnite a direct payment system to bypass the commission Apple charges for in-app purchases. Cupertino's response was to remove the game from the App Store, triggering a long series of cross-lawsuits and accusations of abuse of dominant market position.
Over the years, the courts have narrowed the scope of the dispute. One of the key issues is whether Apple can continue to charge a fee when a developer provides a link within the app to a website or other environment where the user completes the purchase. Judges have indicated that, in any case, only a commission based on costs "genuine and reasonably necessary" to coordinate those links, and nothing more.
This clarification opened up a complex scenario: the judges allow Apple to recover part of the revenue as long as it justifies the cost associated with maintaining the infrastructure and security of the App Store, but they reject the use of this avenue to covertly reinstate traditional commissions of up to 30%.
Epic argues that, with the current interpretation of the ruling, Apple could only impose a minimum commission on external purchasesThis is far from the percentage it has historically applied to developers large and small. According to the creator of Fortnite, any attempt to go beyond that threshold violates the spirit of the court order.
For its part, Apple insists that its fees are essential to maintaining the platform, funding developer tools, and ensuring a controlled experience for iPhone and iPad users. The company argues that the ecosystem cannot be sustained without some form of revenue associated with transactions, even if these occur. outside of the App Store payment system.
Civil contempt and fines for trying to save their "taxes"
Tensions escalated when, after losing in previous instances, Apple decided to apply a 27% surcharge to purchases made through external links originating from iOS apps. That is, it allowed the link to be included, but set a fee almost equivalent to the traditional commission, which in practice discouraged developers from using alternative payment methods. This attempt to keep the App Store fees It was one of the factors that motivated the judicial reaction.
The federal court in California, in analyzing this measure, concluded that Apple was violating the spirit of the 2021 order and was still attempting to preserve near-total control over app revenue. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld this interpretation and declared the company in violation of the law. civil contempt for failing to comply with the court order.
From there, a second front opened up: that of economic sanctions for this defiance. The US justice system interpreted the attempt to collect a 27% "tax" on external purchases as a way of circumventing the previous ruling, which sought precisely to give developers and users more flexibility in choosing how to pay.
The struggle wasn't confined to the United States. In July 2025, the European Commission Brussels imposed a €500 million fine on Apple, largely for practices related to how the company restricted or penalized external links and alternative payment options. Brussels considered that these policies unduly restricted competition in the mobile app market.
Faced with the threat of new sanctions and daily fines that could reach up to 50 million euros, Apple softened some of its rules and announced that it would move to Allow unrestricted external links in the European Union. However, the issue of fees associated with these links remains a source of friction with both European regulators and US courts.
Apple's plan: freeze changes and delay new pricing
Faced with this situation, Apple has devised a strategy to delay the implementation of a new fee structure until the U.S. Supreme Court rules, if it decides to intervene. The company asked the Court on April 3rd to Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that would halt the plan that would allow the Northern District of California to set a "reasonable" fee for purchases made through links in apps.
Apple's main concern is that the district court will set a specific commission and that, later, the Supreme Court will change its ruling or even overturn the decision altogether. In that scenario, the Cupertino company fears being forced to pay swings in its tariff structure, with the consequent impact on the relationship with developers, users and investors.
Therefore, in its request, Apple makes it clear that it does not want to make significant changes to the App Store's fee structure until a final resolution is reached. In the meantime, it proposes maintaining the current system, which currently allows for the inclusion of links to external purchases without additional fees, albeit with nuances and restrictions that continue to generate debate.
The idea is to postpone a direct confrontation over rate levels and preserve some room for negotiation. If the Ninth Circuit approves their plan, the The discussion about the fees would be suspended. until the Supreme Court makes a decision on whether to admit the case and, if so, on the merits of the case.
However, if the appeals court rejects Apple's proposal, the district court would begin calculating those fees at the same time the company files its appeal with the Supreme Court. In either scenario, Epic Games has strongly opposed this maneuver, believing it is merely an attempt to buy time and maintain a power structure in the App Store that has already been challenged in court.
Apple's legal arguments and the role of Epic Games
From a legal standpoint, Apple argues that it should never have been held in contempt because, according to its interpretation, the The court order did not explicitly mention the commissions. which he could or could not charge. In his opinion, the judges went beyond what the original text stated by criticizing him for the 27% surcharge on external links.
Furthermore, the company considers it excessive that the measures stemming from the case apply to all developers present in the US App Store and not just those directly linked to Epic Games. Apple argues that the order should have a more limited scope and that extending it to the entire iOS ecosystem is an interpretation that, in practice, reconfigures the app market without a sufficiently clear mandate.
Epic Games, for its part, has positioned itself against Apple's latest legal offensive and has challenged the request to postpone the execution of the judgment. The video game company insists that Apple's ultimate goal is to maintain its ability to set terms and commissions on the App Store for as long as possible, even though the courts have already warned of the risks to competition.
It's worth remembering that in 2024, both Apple and Epic asked the Supreme Court to review various aspects of the litigation, and in both cases the request was rejected. The Supreme Court's own recent history suggests that the chances that it will now accept Apple's appeal They are not particularly high, although the company is confident that the context of civil disobedience may motivate a reconsideration.
Alongside this entire legal battle, a symbolic but significant gesture has occurred: the return of Fortnite to iPhones in the United States, after several years away from the App Store. Although this move seemed to bring the two companies closer together, the underlying dispute, centered on external payments and commissions, remains completely unresolved.
Potential impact in Spain and on European regulation
Although the case is being heard in US courts, its consequences are being closely followed in Spain and the rest of Europe. Digital Markets Law (DMA), in force since March 2024, already obliges platforms like Apple to allow third-party app stores already facilitating alternative payment methods within its ecosystem.
In the European context, the discussion is not limited to whether developers can link to their website or an external payment processor, but also to what limits Apple can impose in the form of fees, technical requirements, or administrative hurdles. The US experience with Epic offers Brussels and national authorities a valuable perspective. practical precedent on how the opening of payment systems is interpreted in reality.
For Spanish users, the outcome of this struggle could translate, in the medium term, into more in-app payment options And potentially, this could lead to somewhat more competitive prices if developers stop paying such high commissions. However, it could also result in new subscription models, additional fees, or premium services outside the App Store if Apple tries to compensate for the reduction in its direct percentage through other means.
For European developers, especially smaller ones or independent studios, the opening up of external payments presents an opportunity to improve margins and have more control over their customer relationships. However, many still rely on the visibility provided by the App Store And they fear that Apple will use other mechanisms, such as changes in editorial promotion or internal search, to favor those who continue to use its native payment system.
The European Commission, for its part, has made it clear with the €500 million fine that it will closely monitor any attempt by Apple to impose hidden "taxes" on external links. In this context, the resolution of the Apple-Epic case in the United States may set the tone for upcoming inspections, sanctions, and regulatory dialogues both in Brussels and in countries like Spain, where competition authorities also monitor the major digital operators.
This entire legal and regulatory framework paints a picture in which Apple is trying, by all means at its disposal, to halt or at least slow down the full implementation of third-party payments in the App Store. US courts, the European Commission, and companies like Epic Games are pushing in the opposite direction, seeking to reduce the company's control over transactions within iOS. The outcome of this conflict will determine the extent to which Apple can continue to dictate the rules of the game in its app store and what real benefits developers and users gain, both in the United States and in Spain and the rest of Europe.
