This week's developments both sit in U.S. courts and both bear directly on what out-of-app payments on iOS will cost and how open they'll be. Apple and Epic are fighting over the documents that will set the external-link commission rate, and developers are raising doubts about how much a DOJ settlement would actually change. The through-line: the rules governing iOS payments are still being written.

Apple and Epic fight over the evidence behind Apple's proposed 5–15% external-link fee

In a joint status filing in the ongoing Epic v. Apple proceedings, Epic accused Apple of stalling on documents that would justify Apple's proposed new commission on external-link purchases. In August 2026 Apple proposed a 5% to 15% commission for U.S. purchases made through external App Store links, down from the 27% fee Apple introduced in 2024 after a court ordered it to let developers steer users to alternative payment methods. The court later found Apple in contempt of that order; Apple is seeking to overturn the finding at the Supreme Court, arguing the order never barred it from charging any commission. While the Supreme Court weighs that challenge, a lower court is separately deciding whether and how much Apple may charge on external-link purchases, and under the governing agreement Apple had to produce internal documents showing how it arrived at the 5–15% rates. Epic says that "nearly two months after its production deadline, Apple has scarcely produced any documents"; Apple disputes this, says it met its initial obligation, and blames Epic for the delay, citing a demand for searches involving 27 individuals.

Why it matters: This case sets the actual economics of U.S. out-of-app monetization via external links — whether the fee on external purchases lands at 27% or somewhere in the 5–15% range is exactly what this lower-court record is being built to decide. Publishers planning external-link checkout should treat the final commission as unsettled and model both ends of the range rather than assuming today's number sticks.

Sources

Developers warn a DOJ–Apple antitrust settlement could be too weak to change behavior

The Information reported that developers are concerned a potential settlement of the U.S. Department of Justice's antitrust case against Apple might not go far enough to curb allegedly anticompetitive conduct. Per the report, DOJ officials have signaled they would prefer to settle than keep litigating and have asked developers for ways to improve the iPhone's interoperability with other devices, suggesting a deal focused on interoperability. Developers and antitrust lawyers cited worry any settlement would impose only light requirements — for example, competing payment apps reportedly still face disadvantages despite gaining access to the iPhone's NFC chip, and rival smartwatches lack much of the Apple Watch's integration. Those raising concerns with the DOJ reportedly included Epic Games, the privacy firm Proton, and a major U.S. payments company. The DOJ filed the suit in March 2024, alleging restrictions on messaging, digital wallets, smartwatches, cloud gaming, and multipurpose apps protected an unlawful smartphone monopoly; Apple has since added RCS to Messages in iOS 18 and opened iPhone NFC access to third-party contactless transactions starting in iOS 18.1, but is expected to resist broader changes. A reported contributor to the delay is the pending Senate confirmation of Adam Candeub to lead the DOJ's antitrust division.

Why it matters: Near-term platform-level relief on iOS payments is uncertain and may arrive diluted, so out-of-app monetization strategy shouldn't be built on the assumption that Apple's rules are about to be forced open. Plan around the rules as they stand today and treat any antitrust relief as upside, not a prerequisite.

Sources

The takeaway

Both stories point the same way: the U.S. terms for iOS payments are in motion, and neither the external-link commission nor the scope of antitrust relief is fixed. The routes publishers can act on now — external-link steering and web shops — are the dependable path, while litigation outcomes are upside to model, not a plan to wait on. Building commission as a variable rather than a constant keeps pricing flexible as the number moves, and an MoR setup can absorb the rate uncertainty and per-jurisdiction compliance churn in the meantime.