Apple admitted in regulatory filings on August 18, 2026, that it may not be allowed to charge any commission at all on purchases made through third-party app stores and other external platforms. The disclosure addresses ongoing litigation stemming from the Epic Games case, where the Ninth Circuit appeals court suggested Apple’s commission on off-App Store purchases should be limited to the direct costs of facilitating those linkouts. Under that legal standard, Apple now concedes those costs could amount to zero.
Apple’s U.S. Commission revenue has fallen 18 percent since the start of 2026, according to data cited by the Financial Times and aggregated by Appfigures. Sensor Tower reported that U.S. Consumer spending through the App Store was down 6 percent in the second quarter of 2026, with Apple acknowledging during its last earnings call that regulatory changes have begun to weigh on Services growth.
How Apple’s Commission Proposal Has Shrunk
Apple has proposed a tiered commission system as a compromise, arguing that zero compensation does not account for the value of the App Store platform itself. The proposal includes 15 percent for standard apps, 10 percent for the Video Partner Program, News Partner Program, Mini Apps Partner Program, and subscription renewals. This represents a dramatic retreat from Apple’s earlier 27 percent charge on in-app content sales made outside the App Store, a rate that prompted Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to find Apple in contempt of court.
The zero-commission admission carries weight precisely because it comes from Apple itself. Rather than arguing that zero is impossible, Apple instead argues that zero does not fairly compensate the company for platform value. This concession effectively hands the appeals court and the trial judge the legal framework they need to impose a cap well below what Apple has proposed.
The Supreme Court’s Rejection Shifts the Momentum
Apple’s filing came weeks after the Supreme Court denied the company’s request to pause lower-court proceedings while it reviews whether Apple can be held in contempt for the 27 percent off-App Store fee. Judge Gonzalez Rogers had previously issued an injunction requiring Apple to allow developers to direct users to alternative purchasing methods, a ruling Apple has fought for years through appeals. The Supreme Court’s refusal to intervene eliminates Apple’s last hope for a temporary reprieve and leaves the company to defend its position in the trial court and appeals court simultaneously.
The appeals court’s emphasis on “necessary costs” sets the legal standard going forward. If the court determines that the cost of processing a payment link falls below any percentage Apple proposes, the company cannot defend that fee as compensation for services rendered.
Europe’s New Structure Shows Apple’s Patchwork Strategy
On this same day, Apple announced changes to its business terms for apps in the European Union, set to take effect October 1, 2026. The company will replace its per-install Core Technology Fee with a simpler 5 percent Core Technology Commission on digital transactions for apps distributed outside the App Store. For EU App Store apps using Apple In-App Purchase, the commission drops to 26 percent, reduced to 15 percent for most developers; apps using alternative payment processing pay 20 percent, reduced to 10 percent for qualified developers.
This EU restructuring follows “close collaboration with the European Commission,” Apple said, and is intended to reduce complexity by consolidating developers under a single set of business terms. The gap between Europe’s new rates and the potential zero-percent outcome in the U.S. Illustrates how fragmented regulatory pressure has forced Apple into an increasingly unsustainable patchwork model. Different regions now face different commission structures, making it harder for Apple to defend any single rate as universal or necessary.
What Zero Commission Means for Services Revenue
If Apple is forced to accept zero commission on external transactions, the impact on its Services segment would be substantial. Services revenue has become increasingly central to Apple’s business model, and commission revenue from the App Store and in-app purchases represents a major component of that growth. Analysts quoted by the Financial Times have suggested that a zero-commission scenario could trigger the first year-over-year decline in Services revenue in the company’s recent history, with potential implications for Apple’s overall valuation.
Apple will argue that zero commission fails to account for platform value and continue to defend a percentage-based fee in the coming months. Whether the appeals court or the trial judge will accept that argument, or whether regulatory intervention in other jurisdictions will force Apple to concede further, remains the defining question. What is now certain is that the commission rates underwriting Apple’s services strategy for the past fifteen years face systematic dismantling by courts and regulators worldwide.
