Epic Games filed an opposition to Apple’s request to seal portions of its linkout fee proposal, arguing the company is concealing commercially sensitive information across 60+ redactions that should remain public during fee-setting proceedings. The opposition, filed August 24, 2026, targets redactions within Apple’s proffer and supporting expert reports submitted to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. According to 9to5Mac, which first reported the filing, Epic contends that Apple has not sufficiently justified why financial data, linkout adoption estimates, developer survey results, and other materials should be withheld from the court record.
Apple’s proposal, submitted days earlier, calls for commission rates of 15% on standard apps, 10% for the Video Partner Program, News Partner Program, Mini Apps Partner Program, and subscription renewals, and 5% for Small Business Program apps. The redactions Epic is challenging extend across both the fee proposal itself and the expert reports filed in support of those figures.
Why Epic Opposes the Sealing
Epic argues that “Apple again seeks to conceal information from the public and unnecessarily hamper proceedings,” and that courts impose a high bar for sealing records, especially when the information is central to determining Apple’s proposed commission rates. The company cited precedent from past cases in which courts rejected sealing requests for failing to demonstrate specific harm; decisions have found that “broad allegations of harm, unsubstantiated by specific examples or articulated reasoning” and “tepid and general justifications” are insufficient to withhold information from public view.
Epic also contends that portions of what Apple seeks to redact are outdated or already publicly available, further undermining the necessity of sealing. The company’s filing emphasizes that transparency is particularly critical when the underlying data directly informs the fee structure a judge will impose.
Timeline and What Comes Next
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers set a tight deadline: Apple has 24 hours to submit an outline of the fees it proposes to charge developers for using alternative payment options and linking to web-based purchases. This fee determination follows a contempt ruling in April 2025, when Gonzalez Rogers found Apple in willful violation of her earlier anti-steering order. Since April 2025, Apple has been barred from collecting any linkout fees in the U.S. App Store.
The appeals court upheld the contempt finding but ruled that Apple is entitled to reasonable compensation for its intellectual property; the case was sent back to the district court to determine what that reasonable fee should be. Apple has appealed the entire contempt ruling to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear the case, but multiple courts have rejected Apple’s requests to pause the fee-setting process.
The Supreme Court’s agreement to hear Apple’s appeal does not delay proceedings in district court; the fee structure is being set in parallel with the higher court’s review.
How Apple’s Proposal Compares to Google’s
Apple’s proposed rates sit lower than what Google charges on Google Play Store. Google charges 20% for standard apps, 15% for program rates, and 10% for subscriptions. Epic has accepted Google’s rates in its own settlement discussions; however, Epic has argued that under the Ninth Circuit’s definition of “necessary costs,” Apple should charge 0% for purchases made via linkout to the web, since Apple provides no service in those transactions.
Both parties have recently expressed interest in settlement talks. Apple submitted a motion asking Gonzalez Rogers to order a confidential settlement conference, saying such talks could “obviate the need for prolonged remand proceedings.” Epic responded that while willing to entertain any “serious settlement proposal” from Apple, such a proposal would have to “benefit all developers,” not merely resolve the immediate fee dispute between the two companies.
The sealing dispute now sits directly in front of the judge, with Apple’s 24-hour deadline looming. The degree to which Gonzalez Rogers enforces transparency could telegraph how skeptical she is of Apple’s fee rationale itself. The stricter Apple’s fee justification must become under public scrutiny, the narrower the room for negotiation becomes.
