There has been a new development that may bring the parties to the negotiation table in the legal battle between Apple and Epic Games that has been going on for years due to App Store payment rules. In addition to submitting its new model to the court regarding the commissions it wants to receive from transactions made outside the App Store’s in-app purchase system in the USA, Apple requested that reconciliation negotiations be initiated with Epic Games. The company is asking Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to direct the parties to a settlement conference overseen by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Apple’s lawyers met with Epic’s legal team on August 11, 2026, before taking this request to court, but Epic did not approve the process. Although the filing does not directly include a settlement offer, it does indicate that Apple wants to consider the possibility that the dispute could be resolved through out-of-court negotiations.
The timing of the development is also noteworthy in terms of the course of the case between the two companies. On the same day, Apple submitted to the court the commission structure that it wants developers to pay for purchases completed through payment systems other than the App Store in the USA. According to the proposal, the company will be able to receive up to 15 percent commission from transactions made using alternative payment methods. Epic Games quickly objected to these rates, arguing that the proposed fees were well outside the bounds of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ guidance on allowable fees. Therefore, Apple’s request for a settlement conference comes at a stage when one of the parties’ main disputes, the commission rate that can be applied to non-App Store transactions, has not yet been resolved.
Commission debate continues in the Apple and Epic Games case
Apple’s new filings coincided with the period when the US Supreme Court rejected the company’s request to stay the proceedings in the lower court. Apple had requested that the process in the lower court be suspended while Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ contempt of court decision against the company was reviewed. At the center of the controversy is Apple’s 27 percent commission on purchases completed externally, following a court decision to allow developers to direct users to external payment methods. Rogers had previously concluded that this practice did not comply with the court order. Although Apple’s now proposed structure of up to 15 percent is lower than the previous 27 percent, Epic’s objection reveals that serious disagreements continue between the parties regarding the scope and level of the fee that can be charged through external payment connections.
Apple is of the opinion that Epic Games’ approval is not mandatory for the settlement conference. In its petition to the court, the company states that the court has the authority to direct the parties to such a conference, even if Epic does not agree. Additionally, Apple points out that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals also encouraged the parties to agree on an appropriate external payment link commission. According to the company, handling a potential settlement in a confidential and non-contentious environment can increase the likelihood of finding a workable solution and eliminate the need for lengthy proceedings that may follow the case’s return to a lower court. However, the fact that Epic did not approve Apple’s request in advance does not guarantee that the parties will reach a common point regarding the commission in a short time, even if a conference is held.
The content of Apple’s petition brings with it an important distinction at this point. The document does not contain a specific settlement offer, payment plan or other settlement terms that the company offered to Epic Games. Therefore, it is not correct to consider the court application as a proposed agreement between Apple and Epic. Apple is simply requesting that Judge Rogers direct the two parties to formal settlement discussions under the supervision of Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. If the court accepts this request, the negotiations will be held in a confidential negotiation environment, unlike the open legal struggle that the parties have been pursuing for years.
The dispute between Apple and Epic Games began after Epic added a direct payment option into Fortnite in 2020, which disabled Apple’s in-app purchase mechanism. Apple then removed Fortnite from the App Store, and Epic filed a lawsuit against the company’s store and payment policies. Decisions made in subsequent years did not completely remove Apple’s overall control of the App Store; On the other hand, the provisions that paved the way for developers to direct users to alternative purchasing methods were one of the most lasting consequences of the case. How these provisions will be implemented in practice and under what conditions Apple can charge for external transactions are the ongoing part of the dispute. For this reason, it can be expected that one of the most critical topics of possible settlement negotiations will be the commission to be applied for purchases made through external payment links.
Whether the court accepts Apple’s request will determine the direction of the next process. The acceptance decision will not mean that the parties will agree; it will simply move Apple and Epic into a court-supervised negotiation process. The fact that Epic has already opposed the new commission proposal, which could go up to 15 percent, shows that the distance between the parties regarding the level of fees continues. However, reaching an agreement could quickly resolve the most controversial part of the years-long judicial process regarding the use of payment links outside the App Store and the fees that can be charged for these transactions. For now, Apple’s application is more of a request to have the parties formally discuss the possibility of a deal than a concrete agreement.
Join Channel