Epic Games is pushing back against Apple’s request to keep parts of its latest App Store commission proposal sealed, arguing that the information plays a central role in deciding how much Apple can charge developers for purchases completed outside the App Store.
Apple recently proposed a 15% commission for standard apps that normally pay a 30% in-app purchase fee, while apps in programs such as the Video Partner Program, News Partner Program, Mini Apps Partner Program, and subscription renewals would pay 10%. Small Business Program apps would face a 5% commission.
Along with that proposal, Apple submitted expert reports and asked the court to seal several sections containing financial data, developer survey results, estimates for external purchase link adoption, and other information it considers commercially sensitive.
Don’t miss the best of The Mac Observer
Set us as a preferred source and our Apple reporting ranks higher in your Google Search results and Discover feed — one tap, no account changes.
Epic says Apple has not justified the redactions
Epic argues that Apple has not shown enough specific harm to justify keeping those details out of public view, especially because the information directly affects the court’s review of Apple’s proposed commission structure.
The company also argues that some of the information Apple wants sealed is already public or no longer commercially sensitive because it is outdated.
Epic is particularly challenging Apple’s attempt to redact data showing how many developers have adopted external purchase links since the court ordered Apple to allow developers to direct users to outside payment options.
According to Epic, those adoption figures are important because they help show how developers are responding to link-out purchasing and therefore matter when evaluating Apple’s proposed fees.
Epic has asked the court to reject several of Apple’s sealing requests and submitted a separate 19-page exhibit challenging more than 60 proposed redactions across Apple’s filing and supporting expert reports.
Discussion