Is the "Apple Tax" Coming to an End? — Saying NO to the "Deterrent 27%," the Next Point of Contention is "Reasonable Fees"

1) The Conclusion is "Apple's Defeat," but Not "Zero External Fees"

"Apple has lost." That's how it might read if you only look at the headline. However, the reality is a bit more complex.

Brazil's InfoMoney (distributed by Bloomberg) reported that while Apple lost its appeal and the court recognized "non-compliance with orders," it left room for Apple to "charge some fees for transactions conducted outside the App Store." The issue at hand was the long-standing lawsuit with Epic Games (developer of Fortnite) and how Apple responded to the 2021 injunction. InfoMoney

To sum up the key point:
Apple was "out" because it "substantially obstructed" the order to "allow redirection to external payments." However, making the fees for external payments "permanently zero" is also out. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

2) Background: The 2021 Injunction and Apple's "Response"

In 2021, the district court (Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers) did not recognize it as a monopoly under federal antitrust law but ordered that **"Apple must not obstruct developers from directing users to cheaper external payments within apps"** from the perspective of California state law. InfoMoney

Apple ostensibly "allowed external links," but the subsequent operation that became an issue was as follows:

• Charging a commission (fee) of up to **27%** for purchases made via external links

• Imposing detailed restrictions on the display and design of links (e.g., no buttons, constraints on wording and placement)

• Implementing mechanisms that make it difficult to choose external payments, such as displaying strong warning screens to users

These were seen as "formal compliance with the order, but essentially containment," leading to the district court's 2025 judgment (contempt = violation of the order). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals largely supported this core part. The Verge

3) What the Court Clearly Said "No" to: 27% is "Prohibitive"

A symbolic part of the appellate court's decision is the phrase **"27% has a prohibitive effect."**

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals clarified that the keyword "prohibit" in the injunction can be interpreted to mean "prevent, exclude, or significantly hinder,"and concluded that imposing 27% on external purchases effectively eliminates options, thus violating the order. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

In fact, Reuters introduced the mechanism of "27% for external purchases made within 7 days of clicking an external link," citing it as a design that left external purchases almost "unchanged from in-app (30%)." Reuters

4) However, "Apple Can't Charge Anything" is Also a No-Go: The Issue Shifts to "Reasonable Amounts"

On the other hand, the appellate court remanded the part where the district court **"completely banned fees associated with external purchases,"** deeming it too strong (overly broad). AP also reported that the ban was too harsh, ordering a reconsideration of reasonable fees. AP News

InfoMoney (Bloomberg) conveyed that the appellate court indicated "room for some compensation (commission) for Apple's use of intellectual property," while clearly stating **"but not 27%."** InfoMoney

In other words, the main battlefield will change as follows:
From "Don't Charge" to "What Amount is Reasonable."

The direction indicated by the appellate court and related reports is that it should be limited to a "reasonable range" based on "costs necessary for external link adjustments" and "compensation for directly used intellectual property." The Verge

5) Impact: Will There Be a "Hole" in Apple's Revenue Model?

Apple does not disclose individual App Store fees, but InfoMoney (Bloomberg) touches on Apple's explanation that it **"facilitated over $400 billion in developer sales in 2024"and the estimate by the analysis company Appfigures that it's "about $10 billion in the U.S. alone."** InfoMoney

That's why the market becomes nervous. If "reasonable fees" become minimal and developers significantly shift to external payments, there could be medium-term pressure on the revenue of the services division.

However, as Business Insider points out, investors are still assessing "whether user behavior will really change." External payments tend to increase hassle in exchange for "cheapness." How many people will move at the expense of convenience depends on the design. Business Insider

6) Reactions on Social Media: A Three-Way Battle of Welcome, Sarcasm, and "So How Much?"

The ruling has also split opinions on social media into "won/lost" readings. Three main reactions stand out.

(1) Developer-Sided Joy: "Stopped the Giant Junk Fees"

According to Reuters, Epic's Tim Sweeney welcomed the decision, praising it for stopping Apple's "giant junk fees" and expressing that "finally, a major change is happening." Reuters

The Verge also positioned Sweeney's statement as stopping "junk fees," emphasizing the potential impact of rule changes on developers as a whole. The Verge

(2) Sarcasm and Cynicism: "Lost, Yet Still Charging?"

Meanwhile, the fact that Apple retained "room to charge fees even for external purchases" has led to a backlash on social media, with some questioning whether the "Apple tax" will just take another form. Since "zero" is not yet confirmed, the district court will need to draw a line for reasonable amounts. AP News

(3) Practical Perspectives from the Community: "What is a Reasonable Fee?" "If UI Restrictions Remain, It's the Same"

On Reddit's r/apple, within the broader context of this series of events, comments view the design of imposing high-rate fees on external purchases as "excessive" or "overdone," while even Apple fans find 27% "ridiculous." At the same time, there is a mixed sentiment, with some emphasizing the importance of review and security, indicating that there are pros and cons to complete deregulation. Reddit

7) The Next Focus: How to Define "Reasonable Fees"

The biggest issue moving forward is whether the "yardstick" indicated by the court can be translated into specific amounts or rates.

• What does Apple's "necessary cost" include (review, security, dispute resolution, adjustment of pathways, etc.)?

• Can "compensation for intellectual property" be charged as a sales-linked "rate," or will it converge into something closer to fixed costs?

• Will developers truly find enough merit (price difference, UX) to use external payments?

The appellate court clearly stated that 27% is "prohibitive." However, in the next stage, it will be necessary to determine the line that is "not prohibitive." This also involves the market reality (the friction of users moving externally). Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

If necessary, this ruling can be supplemented with a "domestic-oriented addendum" on how it might impact discussions on app billing and store regulations in Japan (business pricing design, regulatory issues, developer practices), and published in the same tone.