The pulse between Apple and Epic Games The dispute over App Store commissions has entered an even more delicate phase. After nearly five years of back-and-forth in US courts, the Cupertino company has decided to take a further step and prepare a formal request to the Supreme Court of the United States to review the order that declared her in contempt for applying a 27% commission on payments made outside her platform.
What began as a one-off collision Fortnite and a direct payment system This case has become a global benchmark for how much a large platform can charge for transactions that occur outside its ecosystem. The final decision by the US justice system could have a profound impact on developers' profit margins, the digital subscription economy, and even the future of AI-based services.
From Fortnite to the Supreme Court's doorstep: five years of conflict
To understand how we got to this situation, we have to go back to August de 2020When Epic Games decided to incorporate a direct payment system into Fortnite to circumvent the App Store's standard 30% commission, Apple reacted immediately by removing the game from its store, and Epic responded with a lawsuit accusing the company of monopolistic practices.
En 2021 SeptemberA federal court in California ruled that Apple was not acting as a monopoly in the strict sense, but did consider that it should allow developers to include links to external payment methodsIn other words, the apps could direct users to external pages or systems to complete the purchase, partially breaking Apple's absolute control over transactions.
The company appealed this decision to the Ninth CircuitThe ruling largely upheld the lower court's decision and highlighted the competitive shortcomings of the App Store model. Apple then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the high court declined to review the case in January 2024, forcing the company to implement the ordered measures.
Meanwhile, the battle was intertwined with other fronts. Digital Markets Law (DMA) In the European Union, in force since March 2024, it already required Apple to allow third-party app stores in the community territory, opening a more demanding regulatory scenario in Europe than in the United States.
After the Supreme Court's 2024 refusal, Apple ended up implementing changes to align with the 2021 order, but it did so in small print: it allowed external links, yes, but added its own commission on those transactions.
The 27% commission: complying with the rule on paper but not in practice
Faced with the obligation to open the door to external payments, Apple introduced a a 27% commission on purchases made through these alternative linksOn paper, it complied with the ruling: developers could link to other payment systems. In practice, the margin for offering more competitive prices was virtually eliminated.
The scheme was simple: developers who wanted to use an external payment method had to assume their own processing costs—usually between 2% and 3% per transaction—and, in addition, pay Apple that 27% for having directed the user away from the App Store. In many cases, the total cost approached or even exceeded the 30% paid if using Apple's system directly.
The company also introduced a reduced rate of 12% for certain small businesses starting in the second yearBut for Epic Games and other players in the sector, the result remained the same: the alternative to Apple's native payment gateway was not economically viable, which emptied the court order that sought precisely to promote real competitive options of its content.
Tim Sweeney, CEO of Epic, has repeatedly described this move as anticompetitivearguing that Apple "controls all the details of these links" and keeps them away from the points where users make the purchase decision. Spotify joined the criticism calling the 27% "exorbitant" in relation to the goal of fostering greater competition in the app market.
The tension has not been limited to the United States. In the European Union, the European Commission went so far as to fine Apple 500 million euros In 2025, the EU stated that the conditions associated with external links and commissions prevented developers from offering real and cheaper alternatives to the end user. Faced with the threat of daily fines that could reach €50 million, Apple was forced to relax some of its policies within the European Union, loosening its grip on external links somewhat to appease Brussels. The investigation by the European Commission was key in this process.
Civil contempt and the new trip to the Supreme Court
In the United States, the design of the 27% commission ultimately ran headlong into legal challenges. April 2025A federal court concluded that Apple had violated the 2021 order and declared it in civil contempt, precisely because that commission "defeated in practice the purpose" of allowing payments outside the App Store.
The decision was reviewed by the Ninth Circuit Court of AppealsThe court, in December 2025, confirmed the contempt of court ruling. The judges agreed that the pricing structure designed by Apple effectively nullified the possibility of using alternative payment systems, as it left the financial burden on developers virtually unchanged.
Apple reacted by requesting a rehearing before the Ninth Circuit itself, an exceptional procedure that would have allowed the discussion to be reopened with a broader panel of judges. However, in March 2026 The request was rejected, leaving the company with no further options within that instance.
Given this situation, the next step has been to prepare a new petition before the Supreme CourtThe lawsuit aims to halt the mandate that requires Apple to implement sweeping changes to its fee policies. In its argument, Apple maintains that the immediate implementation of the order would severely damage its business model and create a situation that would be difficult to reverse should the Supreme Court ultimately rule in its favor.
Meanwhile, the case has returned to a lower court with a far from simple task: to determine what level of commission, if any, can Apple continue to charge Regarding transactions that take place outside the App Store but originate from an app distributed through it, until there is a clear answer, the uncertainty for both the company and the developers is considerable.
What's at stake for the market with the Supreme Court's decision?
The issue that could land on the Supreme Court's docket goes beyond the specific relationship between Apple and Epic Games. The underlying question is What percentage can a large platform legitimately charge for a purchase that technically takes place outside of its environment?but it begins thanks to its infrastructure, its user base, and its tools.
There is no solid precedent in U.S. antitrust law that addresses this exact situation. Therefore, any decision the Supreme Court makes—whether accepting or rejecting the case—will carry significant symbolic and practical weight. Although the high court could again decline to intervene, as it did in 2024, the scale of the conflict and the economic importance of digital fees suggest that this time the petition will receive greater attention.
The significance is especially noticeable in models based on subscriptions and in-app purchasesA significant reduction in fees, or a ban on applying such high percentages to external payments, could significantly improve profitability per user for thousands of apps, from streaming services to educational platforms, productivity tools, and financial applications.
The discussion also intersects with the rise of Generative AI and chatbotsIncreasingly, transactions originate from conversational assistants or AI agents integrated within third-party apps. The big question is who should charge what when the purchase experience takes place across multiple platforms: the app, the AI ​​provider, the store from which the app was downloaded, and, in some cases, the operating system.
In this context, the clash between Apple and Epic has become a kind of legal and economic laboratory. The outcome here could end up serving as a precedent for future conflicts involving other tech giants and services that are still in their early stages of development.
Google's move and competitive pressure
While Apple tries to defend its 27% commission, Google has opted for a different strategy to settle its own dispute with Epic Games. The search engine company recently reached an agreement that included a reduction of the Play Store commission to 20% under certain conditions, sending a clear message to the market about how far it is willing to compromise.
This step was interpreted in the sector as a sign that the historical model of 30% as standard It is beginning to crack under judicial and regulatory pressure. Although the Android ecosystem functions differently—with the ability to install apps outside the Play Store and a greater diversity of app stores—Google's move sets a benchmark that lawyers and regulators will not lose sight of.
In practice, the reduction to 20% presents developers with a simple argument: if a large platform can operate with a lower margin without collapsing, the economic justification for fees close to 30% is weakened. This is also something that market regulators in different regions can use when assessing whether current fees are reasonable.
For Apple, Google's deal with Epic adds a additional layer of competitive pressureAlthough the company maintains that its ecosystem offers added value in security, quality control, and user experience, the comparison with a direct rival that has already made a move complicates the narrative that high commissions are essential to sustain the model.
Europe, Spain and the effect of the DMA on commissions
In the European case, the debate over commissions is not only taking place in the courts, but also in the regulatory arena. With the Digital Markets Law In effect, the European Commission has begun demanding structural changes from Apple in the way it manages the distribution of applications in the European Union, including Spain.
The DMA requires so-called "gatekeepers"—like Apple—to allow third-party app stores This will reduce barriers for developers to offer their services without relying exclusively on the App Store. This opens the door to greater competition in Europe, not only in terms of catalogs but also in commissions and commercial terms.
In markets like Spain, where a growing part of digital consumption involves mobile applications — from banking to leisure or education — the way Apple applies these community requirements can directly affect the final price of subscriptions and in-app purchases that users pay.
Although the DMA and the Epic case in the United States are different processes, there is a evident feedbackThe decisions Brussels makes strengthen the arguments of those in the United States who are calling for stricter limits on commissions charged by large platforms, and vice versa. Apple is trying to navigate this balance, adjusting its policies in Europe to comply with the law while defending its room for maneuver on the other side of the Atlantic.
For regulators in Latin America and other regions, the case is being closely followed. Although there is no regulation equivalent to the DMA, the outcome of the Apple-Epic dispute and the sanctions imposed in Europe will serve as a guide when considering future reforms in digital markets, where the App Store remains a key entry point.
What does all this mean for app founders and developers?
Beyond the big numbers and the names involved, the Apple vs. Epic case directly affects startups, technology SMEs and independent developers that rely on mobile distribution to reach their customers. The discussion about the 27% isn't theoretical: it translates into margin points that can make the difference between a viable project and one that isn't.
First, there is the impact on the margins per transactionIf US courts ultimately limit Apple's ability to collect commissions, developers could negotiate or access more competitive structures, especially in models where every percentage point counts, such as low-priced subscriptions or micropayments. A recent analysis suggests that Users would win the antitrust battle if commissions are reduced.
Subscription-based apps—very common in Spain in sectors such as audiovisual content, online training, and productivity tools—are particularly sensitive. A significant reduction in fees can improve unit profitability from the first month, allow for additional investment in marketing, or even pass some of the savings on to the user in the form of more competitive prices.
On the other hand, the dispute is redefining the bargaining power between platforms and developers. Although there is still no final Supreme Court ruling, the mere fact that the courts have deemed commissions like 27% "prohibitive" gives studios and startups more grounds to challenge certain contractual clauses.
In an environment where services based on AI and chatbots As these projects grow at a good pace, clarity on who can charge fees and how much is key to designing sustainable business models. Many early-stage projects are already incorporating different regulatory scenarios into their financial plans, considering both the continuation of current fees and a possible reduction forced by court rulings or new laws.
The result is that any founder working on iOS, whether in Spain, the rest of Europe, or Latin America, now has a clear incentive to closely follow this case. Understanding the legal context and regulatory trends has become an integral part of strategic planning, on par with product development or user acquisition.
Apple's new offensive before the US Supreme Court marks a critical point in this long-running battle with Epic Games. The discussion over whether a 27% commission on external payments This is compatible with the obligation to open up the ecosystem, which not only affects two giants in the sector but also jeopardizes the balance between platform power, developer freedom, and user protection. What is decided in the coming months, both in Washington and Brussels, could ultimately lead to a scenario of lower fees and more flexible payment options, or consolidate—at least for a time—the current model that raises so many concerns within much of the digital industry.
