In addition to submitting its proposed commission structure for purchases made outside the App Store’s IAP system in the US, Apple filed a motion indicating it is willing to explore a settlement with Epic Games. Here are the details.
Apple might be ready to settle
Earlier today, Apple submitted its proposal outlining the commission it wants to be allowed to charge on purchases completed through payment systems outside the App Store.
The filing came just as the Supreme Court rejected Apple’s request to pause the lower-court proceedings while it reviews Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ contempt finding over the company’s decision to charge a 27% commission after being ordered to allow developers to direct users to outside payment methods.
Under Apple’s proposed structure, the company could charge commissions of up to 15% on purchases completed through alternative payment systems. Epic Games immediately pushed back, saying it “believes these fees are far outside of the bounds of the Ninth Circuit’s guidance on permissible fees.”
And while that filing has gotten most of the attention, Apple also submitted another motion today asking Judge Gonzalez Rogers to order the parties into a settlement conference.
From the filing (edited for clarity):
[Apple] respectfully moves the Court for an order referring the parties to a settlement conference before Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero. Counsel for Apple conferred with counsel for [Epic] on August 11, 2026 regarding the requested relief. […] Epic did not consent to the relief sought herein.
This means that Apple’s legal team approached Epic’s lawyers about seeking a settlement conference before filing the motion, but Epic did not agree to Apple’s request.
In the filing, Apple argues that the court has the authority to order the parties into a settlement conference even without Epic’s consent, and adds that the Ninth Circuit itself encouraged both sides to reach an agreement on an appropriate link-out commission.
The company also says that “discussions of a potential settlement in a confidential, non-adversarial setting would increase the likelihood of reaching a practical resolution that could obviate the need for prolonged remand proceedings.”
It is worth noting that the filing does not contain Apple’s proposals or offers for a settlement, nor does it constitute a settlement proposal per se. Rather, Apple is asking the court to order the parties into settlement talks under the supervision of Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.
You can read Apple’s full petition below:
What terms do you think Apple is going to propose? Let us know in the comments.
Worth checking out on Amazon
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
