Appeals Court Lets Apple Charge Something on Link-Outs, but Not 27%
The Ninth Circuit upheld Apple's contempt finding in Epic v. Apple but sent the commission question back for a cost-based answer.
Key takeaways
- The Ninth Circuit affirmed that Apple violated the 2021 injunction but called a zero-commission ban on link-outs overbroad.
- Apple may recover only costs genuinely and reasonably necessary to coordinate external links.
- The Supreme Court declined to stay the ruling on May 6, 2026, pushing the fee fight back to the district court.
A federal appeals court has largely sided with Epic Games in its long-running fight with Apple, confirming that Apple defied a 2021 order on external payment links. But the court also found that banning any commission on those purchases went too far, leaving Apple a narrow route to charge a fee tied to its actual costs.
What the court decided
On December 11, 2025, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court's civil contempt finding against Apple. The panel agreed that Apple's restrictions on linked-out purchases, including a 27% fee and message screens that discouraged users from leaving the app, effectively prohibited what the injunction was meant to allow. It also upheld the bar on dynamic links that log a user in and open a specific product page.
Where Epic lost ground was the remedy. The lower court had barred Apple from taking any commission or fee on those transactions. The appeals panel called that overbroad and punitive. Apple may charge a commission covering costs that are genuinely and reasonably necessary for coordinating external links, but not more, and it cannot bill for security and privacy features it offers on those links.
Where the case goes next
The panel gave the district court two options. It can rewrite the injunction to forbid only prohibitive commissions, or it can keep a ban in place until Apple proves a proposed fee is reasonable and non-prohibitive. Either way, the burden of justifying a number falls on Apple, which is why Epic framed the ruling as a win despite the partial reversal.
The link rules also changed. Apple may stop developers from making their external links more prominent than Apple's own purchase links in font, size, quantity and placement, but it must let developers match Apple's presentation. That is a middle path between the lower court's total freedom for developers and Apple's original restrictions.
Why it matters
For developers, the practical question is whether linking to a website checkout stays free. Under the injunction, apps in the U.S. can steer buyers to web checkout, and the amount Apple can collect decides whether that route is worth building. A cost-based fee would likely be far smaller than 27%, because Apple would have to document what coordinating a link actually costs. Apple's argument that it deserves compensation for its platform is not rejected outright, only its price.
In 2026 the procedural story got more favorable to Epic. The Ninth Circuit reversed its earlier decision that had let Apple keep its commission structure while it prepared a Supreme Court petition, and the Supreme Court then declined to stay the ruling on May 6. The case now returns to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to set the terms.
The panel said Apple may charge only for costs that are genuinely and reasonably necessary to coordinate external links.
Reading the fine print
The opinion is more balanced than headlines suggested. Epic won on the central question: Apple's rules made linked-out purchases impractical, and Apple's conduct warranted contempt. Apple won on the remedy. Courts generally avoid ordering a business to give away a service for free, and the panel treated a zero-commission rule as punishment rather than a fix. Coverage noted the 27% fee came on top of processing costs that could exceed 3%, so a developer could face a total above the old 30% in-app rate. That, the court implied, is exactly what a link-out regime must prevent.
Law-firm analysis split on emphasis. One headline read the decision as rejecting Apple's 27% fee, while Perkins Coie's reading stressed that Apple may still collect a cost-based commission. Both are right: the number is dead, but the principle of a fee survives. The practical effect depends on how strictly Judge Gonzalez Rogers audits Apple's claimed costs. A fee that covers only the review and coordination of external links could be a fraction of a percent of sales, while a generous accounting could still sting.
The timing matters too. By reversing its own earlier stay and watching the Supreme Court decline to pause the ruling, the courts denied Apple the breathing room it sought. Apple's 2026 position is therefore defensive: it must prove a number rather than defend a rate it picked.
What to watch
- The district court's decision on whether to allow a conditional fee, and how Apple must justify it.
- Whether Apple files a certiorari petition on the merits after the stay denial.
- How developers redesign checkout flows once the link-style rules are final.
- Parallel pressure from the EU, where Apple faces separate anti-steering obligations under the Digital Markets Act.
Sources
- Ninth Circuit Largely Upholds Ruling in Epic v. Apple — Fenwick
- Epic v. Apple: the Ninth Circuit weighs in — Perkins Coie
- Ninth Circuit affirmed contempt finding and remanded on commission rate — Digital Policy Alert
- Epic Games Wins Reversal of Stay in App Store Fee Legal Battle — MacRumors
