Is the "Apple Tax" coming to an end? Appeals court supports Apple for defamation—however, there may be a loophole for the "fee reinstatement."

On December 11, 2025 (U.S. time), another significant milestone was marked in the "long war" over the iPhone's App Store. The stage was set by Epic Games (the developer of Fortnite) in its lawsuit against Apple. In the appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the lower court's severe finding (civil contempt) that Apple had "formally complied but effectively undermined" the court's order. However, the appeals court remanded the lower court's "zero commission" restriction, which prohibited Apple from taking any fees on external payments, as being too stringent, thereby opening a "door" for Apple to claim "reasonable fees." AP News

What was the issue: Allowing links but making them unusable

The core of this dispute is the payment route for in-app purchases. In 2020, Epic sued Apple, arguing that Apple's strong control over app distribution and payments on iOS, which allows it to collect fees (generally 15-30%), hinders competition. In the 2021 lower court ruling, while the monopoly claim itself was dismissed, an injunction was issued allowing developers to display links (so-called steering) to "out-of-app purchase options." AP News

However, the "new rules" Apple introduced after the injunction became a flashpoint. According to reports, Apple implemented a system imposing up to a 27% commission on purchases made via external links and raised psychological barriers for users to proceed with external payments through restrictions on link presentation (no buttons, wording constraints) and warning displays. The lower court (Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers) viewed this as "effectively nullifying the order" and, in April 2025, found Apple in civil contempt, taking strong corrective measures to prohibit the collection of fees on external payments. Reuters

Appeals court conclusion: "Contempt largely upheld" but "zero fees are excessive"

The message from the appeals court is simple. The lower court's view that "Apple pretended to comply" is largely correct. However, "making fees permanently 0% is too blunt as a sanction."

In fact, the appeals court, upon remand, went so far as to suggest a concept of "reasonable fees." There are roughly five key points. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

1. Apple can charge fees only within the range based on "truly necessary and reasonable costs" for operating external links (i.e., not unlimited). cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

2. Regarding the intellectual property (iOS, etc.) directly used to allow external payments, "some compensation" is possible, but it should be apportioned to avoid "double-dipping" for parts already used in in-app purchases. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

3. However, it is not permissible to add commissions for "security/privacy functions of external links" (cost inclusion is restricted). cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

4. Fees can only be charged after the lower court approves the "appropriate level" (cannot be collected arbitrarily before approval). cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

5. If necessary, explore a line close to actual costs through mechanisms like expert testimony or technical committees. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

In other words, it's neither a "complete denial of Apple's revenue model" nor "Apple's free rein." The appeals court has tasked the lower court with redesigning from a technical and cost perspective, not whether fees should be zero or not, but where "prohibitive fees" begin. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

Will the "gold mine of the App Store" be preserved: The reality for Apple

The reason Apple is fixated on this issue is the reality that its services business, including the App Store, is a massive revenue source. Reports suggest that Apple's services division has annual sales exceeding $100 billion, with fees being central to this. If external payments become "the norm," Apple's take rate could structurally decrease. This is why Apple is seen as having made link-outs "allowed but difficult to use." AP News

On the other hand, the appeals court's decision makes it difficult for Apple to "buy time." If Apple wants to charge fees, it needs to break down necessary costs and intellectual property compensation into "explainable numbers" and seek approval from the lower court. If it blocks with an extremely high rate, it will become a point of contention again. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

SNS (Online) reactions: Celebrations and cold water simultaneously

This ruling has created a typical "split" on social media. The reason is simple: the judgment provided "material for both sides."

1) "The end of the Apple tax!"—Victory declaration mode

The most straightforward is the Epic side. According to Reuters, Epic's CEO Tim Sweeney welcomed the ruling, stating it prohibits imposing "huge junk fees" on developers. Reuters

Furthermore, on X, Sweeney himself expressed strong words to the effect that "the 15-30% fee is over in the U.S. as well (similar to the European DMA)." X (formerly Twitter)

In the developer community, similar tones ("Apple Tax is dead," "a big change is coming") were seen in posts. For example, Gergely Orosz, known in the software developer community, also posted emphasizing the significant impact. X (formerly Twitter)

2) "No, Apple still has an 'exit'"—Calm/Cautious side

Meanwhile, the calm side focused on the part where it "reopens a door." Essentially, the appeals court denied the lower court's "zero fees" and left room for Apple to collect within a range recognized as "reasonable."
Analyst Neil Cybart mentioned on X that there is "material for both sides," suggesting that while link-outs themselves are maintained, the possibility of fee collection remains. X (formerly Twitter)

This sentiment was also reflected in the comments section of MacRumors, which has many Apple-leaning readers. There, arguments that "compensation is necessary if using the OS and ecosystem" clashed with counterarguments that "users bought the device, and it's wrong for Apple to use it as a pretext for charging later" within the same thread. MacRumors

3) "Ultimately, how much actual damage?"—Practical viewpoint

Furthermore, the practical side is concerned with "what the numbers will be." The appeals court did not specify a percentage. Moreover, it drew lines significantly limiting Apple's "discretion" by stating "cannot be collected until approval," "no more than necessary costs," and "no additional charges under the guise of security." cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

As a result, whether external payments will spread depends on the "ultimately approved fee rate," "user experience (warning displays and UI constraints)," and "developer-side pathway design."

What will happen next: Designing a "fee blueprint" in the lower court

The next focus is how the lower court, upon remand, will outline "reasonable and non-prohibitive fees." The appeals court clearly indicated a stance of seeking numerical backing, even suggesting expert opinions or committee setups. cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov

For Apple, it's "not a complete defeat," but it's also difficult to "charge at will and establish a fait accompli." For Epic, it gained "an advantage with the maintenance of the contempt finding," but the biggest fruit of "zero fees confirmed" has returned to the table once.

The "walls" of the App Store have indeed shaken. However, whether that crack becomes "a new gate anyone can pass through" or remains "a narrow passage with a toll" will be decided by the upcoming lower court proceedings and the "evidence of costs" accumulated there. AP News