App Store external links just got a new legal contour: the Ninth Circuit largely upheld the contempt finding against Apple for undermining the original 2021 injunction, but reopened the door for a “reasonable” Apple commission on purchases made via external links. The panel sent the case back to the district court to set that fee and clarified how prominent those links can be. If you monetize on iOS, this isn’t background noise—it’s your 2026 go-to-market. (reuters.com)
What exactly did the court decide on December 11, 2025?
Three core points matter for product, legal, and growth teams:
First, the appeals court agreed Apple violated the spirit of the 2021 injunction by making cross‑site purchases harder through tactics like a 27% commission on linked‑out transactions, formatting limits, and heavy‑handed warnings. The contempt stands. (reuters.com)
Second, a blanket ban on commissions was too broad. Apple can charge a fee, but it has to be reasonable and tied to actual coordination costs and some IP value—not generic privacy or security overhead. The district court will set the number. Until it does, Apple can’t start charging a new commission. (macrumors.com)
Third, design rules were clarified. Developers can’t be forced to make external links less prominent than Apple’s in‑app purchase option, though Apple can prevent developers from making them more prominent (e.g., bigger fonts, more numerous CTAs, or more prominent placement than IAP). Expect enforcement on relative parity, not suppression. (macrumors.com)
Timeline: how we got here (and why it matters)
• 2021: District court orders Apple to allow links to alternative payment options inside apps. (washingtonpost.com)
• January 2024: Supreme Court declines to disturb key parts of the order; external linking remains in play. (washingtonpost.com)
• April 30, 2025: District court finds Apple in contempt, citing tactics like a 27% external commission and deterring UX. (macrumors.com)
• May 7, 2025: Apple warns complying could cost “substantial sums,” seeking a stay. (cnbc.com)
• December 11, 2025: Ninth Circuit keeps contempt, lifts absolute fee ban, and sends fee‑setting back to district court with guardrails. (reuters.com)
How this changes App Store external links in practice
Here’s the thing: external links are still permitted in U.S. apps, and Apple still can’t throttle them with dark‑pattern warnings or second‑class formatting. But a commission will likely return—calculated narrowly around link coordination and Apple IP, not amorphous security costs. That fee doesn’t exist yet; when it does, you’ll adapt price and channel strategy. (macrumors.com)
On design: plan for parity. If your IAP uses a 17‑pt button near the top fold, your “Buy on Web” can meet that spec—but don’t expect to splash three “Go Web” banners above Apple’s button. This will push teams to craft balanced pricing tables and fair placement, not a bait‑and‑switch. (macrumors.com)
On eligibility: some program carve‑outs may apply (e.g., News Partner Program or Volume Purchase nuances), and the appeals court narrowed certain blanket prohibitions, so double‑check your entitlement posture before rolling out a universal pattern across a large portfolio. (macrumors.com)
Model the money: a simple commission envelope
Don’t wait for the new number to be announced to get your pricing house in order. Use a “commission envelope” with three scenarios and maintain optionality in code and CMS:
• Low: 0–5% (covers bare coordination + IP).
• Mid: 6–10% (still meaningfully below legacy IAP).
• High: 11–15% (starts to compress margins for low‑ARPU apps).
Layer on your payment processor costs (typically 2.5–3.5% plus fixed fees), fraud buffer, and tax handling. Then calculate break‑even ARPU deltas between an IAP flow (15–30% commission depending on program and tenure) and an external flow under each scenario. Build SKU‑level toggles so growth can flip routing and price cards by user cohort or geography without a rebuild.
Should you steer users off‑app or keep IAP?
You don’t have to pick one forever. For high‑intent, high‑AOV purchases (annual plans, premium bundles), external flows usually win even at a mid commission, because you avoid long‑term IAP rev‑share and get first‑party data. For low‑AOV one‑offs, friction and drop‑off can erase fee savings. Test both with clean measurement.
Two pragmatic rules help: (1) price coherence—if the web is cheaper, explain why without throwing the platform under the bus; and (2) reach—users who start mobile, complete web, and return to mobile should never feel “logged out” of value. Use soft handoffs, deep links, and receipt introspection to light up entitlements instantly once web payment clears.
FAQ developers keep asking
Can Apple audit my external purchases?
The appeals decision focuses the fee on coordination costs and IP, not authorizing sweeping privacy/security justifications to police your off‑app payments. That’s a boundary, not a carte blanche; expect Apple to pursue reporting that supports fee calculation and entitlement correctness while the lower court defines scope. (macrumors.com)
What’s a “reasonable” fee likely to be?
No percentage is set today. The guidance is that costs must tie to link coordination and Apple IP, and exclude general security/privacy. Build the 0–15% envelope now and be ready to tune. (macrumors.com)
When will the new fee apply?
Only after the district court sets it. Until then, no new commission is collectible on external links under this ruling. Watch for a fast‑tracked proceeding. (macrumors.com)
Don’t confuse U.S. and EU rules
Zooming out, the EU’s DMA path is different. In June 2025, Apple announced a complex EU model (Initial Acquisition Fee, Store Services tiers, and either a Core Technology Fee or a Core Technology Commission), and said it would shift to a unified EU business model by January 1, 2026. Your U.S. playbook isn’t your EU playbook. Segment logic by store region, entitlement, and foundational program choices. (9to5mac.com)
If you operate cross‑region, keep one shared design system with locale‑specific components: fee disclosures, CTA copy, and even button groupings can vary by jurisdiction and program terms. That’s not over‑engineering; it’s future‑proofing.
Design and copy: what’s now fair game?
With parity the operative principle, align button size, font, and placement between IAP and external purchase CTAs. Cut fear‑based warnings. Replace them with neutral clarity: “Pay in app” vs. “Pay on our website.” A concise price table or short FAQ link under the buttons can handle common concerns—refunds, receipts, and how entitlements sync across devices. The appeals court also recognized Apple can apply general content standards, so keep promotional language accurate and free of claims you wouldn’t use on the App Store page. (macrumors.com)
Compliance and the new AI privacy guidance
While you’re tuning monetization flows, don’t trip on App Review’s AI data sharing language. Apple recently clarified that apps must explicitly disclose and obtain permission before sharing personal data with “third‑party AI.” If your web checkout or post‑purchase flows pipe user data into external AI services (for fraud scoring, copy personalization, or support), update consent prompts and your privacy policy accordingly. (techcrunch.com)
A practical framework you can implement this week
The 3×3 Monetization Matrix
Map SKUs by AOV (low/med/high) against Intent (cold/warm/hot):
• Low AOV × Cold: Default to IAP. External detours may kill conversion.
• Low AOV × Warm: Offer IAP primary, web as equal‑parity alternative.
• Low AOV × Hot: Test web primary on renewal upgrades; keep IAP visible.
• Medium AOV × Cold: Parity buttons with simple 2‑line trust copy for web.
• Medium AOV × Warm: External first for bundles; A/B price coherence.
• Medium AOV × Hot: External first with one‑tap deep link back to unlock.
• High AOV × Cold: Education first, then web with trust badges and PayPal/Card.
• High AOV × Warm: Web first, IAP parity; consider limited‑time web trials.
• High AOV × Hot: Web only for upgrades; collect tax IDs and company details.
Ship it via feature flags: a server‑controlled “purchase layout” enum (iap_primary, parity, web_primary) and a “jurisdiction profile” enum (us_default, eu_dma_alt, etc.). Marketing and RevOps can adjust without resubmitting the app.
Measurement without drama
Make external flows measurable without tracking theatrics. Use short‑lived signed tokens when a user taps “Website,” then stitch the purchase server‑side when Stripe confirms. Respect the line on device fingerprinting. Your KPI set: click‑through rate to web, web checkout start rate, completion rate, time‑to‑entitlement on device, and refund rate deltas versus IAP. If your external refund pain rises, your support costs will erase fee savings.
Pricing and packaging moves that actually work
• Annual bias: Nudge to annual on web with a modest discount; keep monthly parity to avoid platform complaints.
• Bundles and add‑ons: Move complex bundles to web where you can explain value without App Review friction.
• Founders’ upgrades: Offer account‑based loyalty pricing on web to pull existing IAP subscribers over at renewal (don’t double‑charge; explain the migration clearly).
• Trials: Keep short IAP trials to reduce drop‑offs; run longer web trials for educated leads.
Beware the edge cases
• Partner programs: News or education partners may have idiosyncratic terms—coordinate entitlements to avoid a link‑out dead end. (macrumors.com)
• Force majeure promotions: If you push a “web‑only” flash sale, keep IAP compliant copy and parity placement, or you’ll invite a rejection.
• Customer support: External billing means external refunds. Document refund pathways in‑app and in receipts. Don’t bury them; Apple can cite consumer confusion when scrutinizing your flow.
U.S. vs EU: a quick compare for CFOs
In the U.S., expect a reasonable commission determined by the district court, scoped to link coordination and IP. In the EU, Apple announced a more intricate model in 2025—Initial Acquisition Fee, Store Services tiers, and a shift toward a Core Technology Commission by January 1, 2026. If your P&L assumes one global take rate, you’re carrying risk. Build a region‑weighted contribution margin, not a single blended rate. (9to5mac.com)
What to do next (this week, this quarter)
• This week: Implement parity layouts and copy. Add feature flags for jurisdiction profiles. Prepare a 0–15% commission envelope and update your pricing calculator.
• Next 30 days: Run A/B tests on parity vs. IAP‑first for mid/high‑AOV SKUs. Instrument entitlement syncing and refund automation. Update privacy disclosures for any third‑party AI services in your checkout/support flow. (techcrunch.com)
• Next 90 days: Localize flows for EU vs. U.S. terms. Stand up a monthly governance review with Legal/PMM/Finance to adjust fees, pricing, and link placement as the district court sets the number. Document decisions for App Review and internal audits.
Want a deeper dive?
If you need a primer on linking strategy, our earlier guide covers upgrade flows and UI patterns you can adapt now. See this practical guide to external linking, and once the district court sets the fee, pair it with our analysis in what changes after appeal. If you’d like hands‑on help modeling fees and shipping parity layouts across a portfolio, explore our services for mobile growth or drop us a note via contacts. We’ve implemented these patterns on subscription apps at scale and can help you pressure‑test the revenue plan.
The bottom line
The Ninth Circuit didn’t kill external linking; it fenced it. You still get the strategic benefits—owning billing relationships, flexible pricing, better LTV—without punitive design shackles. A fee is coming, but scoped. Use the window now to clean up parity, test your handoffs, and wire a pricing engine that can absorb whatever number the district court picks. Teams that ship this foundation in Q1 will spend 2026 optimizing growth—not rewriting checkout flows under deadline pressure. (reuters.com)
