Epic declines to endorse settlement talks, leaving Apple's 15% external-purchase rate unsettled

Epic Games has told the court it does not believe a court-ordered settlement conference would meaningfully advance a deal with Apple, days after Apple filed a proposed structure that would charge commissions of up to 15% on in-app purchases completed through alternative payment systems in the US ^[1][2][3]. That keeps the 15% figure where it began: a position filed by one party in remand proceedings, not a rate any court or counterparty has adopted ^[9].

The sequencing is the tell. Apple submitted the commission proposal and, on the same day, a motion asking Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to order the parties into a settlement conference, arguing 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" ^[2][4][5].

Epic's answer is not a flat refusal. It says 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," but that a referral to a settlement conference would not meaningfully advance those prospects "at this juncture," and that it will participate in good faith if ordered to attend ^[6][1][7]. The decision now sits with Gonzalez Rogers; Apple asked that any conference be supervised by Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero ^[8][9].

Why the venue matters more than it sounds: the fight in this case has repeatedly been about who the injunction covers, not only what it costs. Apple has argued that because Epic's suit is not a class action, the injunction should not apply broadly to other developers, and during one appeal argued that developers wanting similar relief could file their own lawsuits ^[10][11]. The Ninth Circuit rejected that narrowing, finding that limiting relief to Epic and its affiliates would not give Epic the complete relief it seeks ^[12]. A confidential conference is the one forum where a developer-wide remedy could be traded for an Epic-specific one without the rest of the market seeing the exchange. 9to5Mac notes that Apple's motion does not say what it might offer, and reads the request as an attempt to reach terms attractive to Epic while limiting concessions to Epic alone ^[13][14].

For teams already wiring external checkout, the practical position is unattractive. The number in circulation is a ceiling of up to 15% submitted by Apple, reported without the full conditions attached, and it is being contested rather than negotiated into a standard ^[2][3][15]. Modelling take rates, refund handling and price ladders against it means modelling against a litigation artifact that a judge can reject, modify, or leave in place while appeals continue.

Three things to watch. Whether Gonzalez Rogers refers the case to Spero, since that determines whether the next round of terms is drafted in public filings or behind confidentiality ^[8][9]. Whether Apple makes the direct approach Epic says it would still entertain, which would move the process outside the court's schedule ^[6]. And whether any resulting terms are written to apply to all developers or only to Epic, the distinction Epic put in its own response and the one the Ninth Circuit has already refused to concede to Apple ^[6][12].