Epic Games is accusing Apple of “manufacturing” a pause in the legal proceedings over its proposed new App Store commission rates. Apple disagrees. Here are the details.
In a joint status update, Epic Games and Apple present very different accounts of Apple’s efforts to turn over internal documents explaining how it arrived at its proposed App Store commission rates.
A bit of context
As a reminder, in August, Apple proposed a new commission structure for purchases made through external App Store links.
Under the proposed structure, developers would pay commissions ranging from 5% to 15%, down from the 27% fee Apple introduced in 2024 after a court ordered the company to allow developers to direct users to alternative payment methods.
The court later found Apple in contempt of its order, a designation Apple is seeking to overturn before the Supreme Court, arguing that the order never forbade it from charging any commissions at all.
While the Supreme Court considers Apple’s challenge to the contempt ruling, a lower court is separately examining whether Apple can impose commissions on purchases made through external links, and if so, how much it can charge.
Apple recently tried to pause those proceedings until the Supreme Court reached a decision, but its requests were rejected by both the lower court and the Supreme Court.
As part of that process, Apple submitted its proposed 5% to 15% commission structure in August, along with evidence supporting those rates.
Under the agreement governing the proceedings, Apple was also required to hand over internal documents showing how it arrived at those rates.
The documents are meant to give Epic an opportunity to examine the basis for Apple’s proposed fees before formally responding to the court.
That’s where the latest dispute comes in, with Epic accusing Apple of deliberately delaying the proceedings and Apple rejecting those allegations.
Apple and Epic dispute evidence behind proposed App Store fees
In the joint status filing, Epic says that “[n]early two months after its production deadline, Apple has scarcely produced any documents,” adding that “Apple’s […] continued unwillingness to commit to a date certain by which it will complete its production demonstrates that Court intervention is essential.”
Apple disputes those accusations, arguing that it had already fulfilled its initial obligation to produce documents explaining how it arrived at the proposed rates.
The company also blames Epic for the delays, saying the Fortnite maker took weeks to submit additional document requests, and subsequently demanded extensive searches involving 27 individuals. Apple says it has agreed to those requests and expects to substantially complete its production by November 25.
In the document, Epic also disputes Apple’s assertions that only four senior executives were involved in determining the proposed commission rates, those four executives being Tim Cook, Eddy Cue, Kevan Parekh, and Carson Oliver.
Epic argues that the decision was also informed by discussions and analyses conducted by other teams within Apple, including work on alternative commission structures in markets outside the United States. (And speaking of that, there is also a dispute over whether Epic should have access to documents concerning Apple’s international commission policies.)
Apple, in turn, maintains that the decision-making process was much narrower than the one behind its original 27% commission, and relied heavily on analyses conducted by outside experts rather than broader internal discussions.
Apple says it has already provided the business records and data that informed its proposal, and disputes Epic’s assertion that a larger group of employees must have been involved in determining the new rates.
Throughout its rebuttal of Epic’s accusations, Apple repeatedly emphasizes that it has agreed to Epic’s requests for additional documents and broader searches, arguing that the scope of those demands, and the time Epic took to make them, are responsible for the delays.
Apple also says Epic caught it by surprise by asking the court to impose a November 1 deadline for completing document production, rather than first discussing that deadline with Apple. The company makes a similar argument about Epic’s objections to the scope of the documents Apple agreed to produce, saying Epic should have raised those concerns directly before seeking court intervention.
Epic, on the other hand, says “Apple feigns surprise at every request Epic raises, as if the Parties, this Court, Magistrate Judge Hixson, and three Court-appointed special masters did not just recently complete a months-long process to extract from Apple documents Epic was clearly entitled to receive.”
For this reason, Epic asks the court to order Apple to:
- “[I]mmediately begin rolling document productions and fully complete its productions on a reasonable timeline, and by no later than November 1, 2026”
- “[P]roduce by said deadline all relevant documents, without regard to the artificial limitations Apple has placed on the scope of its production, as further detailed [in the document].”
You can read the full document below:
gov.uscourts.cand.364265.1720.0Download
Worth checking out on Amazon
You’re reading 9to5Mac — experts who break news about Apple and its surrounding ecosystem, day after day. Be sure to check out our homepage for all the latest news, and follow 9to5Mac on Twitter, Facebook, and LinkedIn to stay in the loop. Don’t know where to start? Check out our exclusive stories, reviews, how-tos, and subscribe to our YouTube channel
