Epic Games told the court on August 17 that it will not consent to Apple’s request for a compulsory settlement conference, arguing that formal mediation would not meaningfully advance fee negotiations at this stage of the dispute. The move represents a calculated rejection of Apple’s attempt to inject momentum into talks over what constitutes a reasonable commission on purchases made outside the App Store.
In its response filing, Epic stated it “does not believe the prospects of such settlement would be meaningfully advanced through referral to a settlement conference at this juncture.” However, the company added a strategic caveat: should Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers order the conference anyway, “Epic will participate in good faith.”
The language is carefully positioned, epic simultaneously claims willingness to negotiate seriously while signaling skepticism about Apple’s settlement sincerity. The company said it “has been, and remains today, willing to entertain any direct approach from Apple with a serious settlement proposal that would introduce competition and benefit all developers.” That qualifier, benefiting all developers, not just Epic, reframes the dispute beyond a two-player fee negotiation into a question about the broader health of the app ecosystem.
Apple’s Proposal Contradicts Its Own Legal Arguments
Apple filed its motion for a settlement conference on August 13, the same day it submitted its proposed fee structure: up to 15 percent commission on purchases completed through alternative payment systems, plus linkout fees of 15 percent for standard apps and 5 percent for Small Business Program apps. The motion argued that the court has authority to order settlement talks even without Epic’s consent, citing encouragement from the Ninth Circuit for both sides to reach agreement on appropriate fees.
What undercuts Apple’s proposal is embedded in Apple’s own filing. The company acknowledged that under the Ninth Circuit’s definition of “necessary costs,” Apple would be entitled to charge 0 percent for purchases made via linkouts to the web. Yet Apple proposes 15 percent anyway, a contradiction Epic’s legal team will almost certainly highlight when Epic files its full response within 60 days.
The Supreme Court Timeline and Settlement Strategy
Apple’s settlement push arrives amid intense procedural pressure. Apple must file its brief with the Supreme Court by September 14 in a case the justices agreed to hear on the contempt ruling itself. Meanwhile, Judge Gonzalez Rogers retains ultimate authority over what fees Apple can charge under her injunction, which the Ninth Circuit refused to narrow despite Apple’s arguments that it should apply only to Epic.
The timing raises tactical questions, if the Supreme Court rules against Apple on contempt, the entire fee-setting exercise becomes moot. If Apple believes it has a real chance at the high court, settling now would forgo that larger victory. Judge Gonzalez Rogers must now decide whether to grant Apple’s motion and refer the case to Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero for settlement supervision. That decision will signal how she views the underlying strength of each party’s position and whether Apple’s motion is a genuine negotiation path or a delay tactic amid broader antitrust pressure.
