Hours after Apple made changes to its EU App Store fees, long-time opponent Epic Games offered its opinion. As usual, Apple didn’t do enough in its eyes.
On Tuesday, Apple attempted to appease the European Union by changing the terms and fees for developers distributing iOS and iPadOS apps in the region. The effort involved simplifying the fee structure to use only percentages, as well as some simpler business requirements.
The changes are an improvement on what it had before, and Apple believes it resolves its disagreements with the EU and the European Commission. After their introduction, the Commission said it welcomed the changes and will continue to monitor the implementation when they go live on October 1.
Of course, Apple can expect criticism on the topic, and that usually comes from Epic Games.
“New junk fees”
A short time after Apple’s press release on the fees, the Epic Games Newsroom X account posted, denouncing them as “new junk fees that do nothing to open up the mobile app ecosystem to competition.”
To Epic, the EU’s Digital Markets Act requires Apple to allow developers to offer link-outs to the web for purchase “free of charge,” as well as allow the “effective use” of competing App Stores.
Apple announced new junk fees in the EU that do nothing to open up the mobile app ecosystem to competition, as required by Digital Market Act.
Apple will charge:
20% fee on alternative in-app payment options
15% fee on links to make purchases outside apps
5% Core— Epic Games Newsroom (@EpicNewsroom) August 18, 2026
The new rules “deliberately violate” the DMA in Epic’s view. If the Commission agreed to the fees and drops the matter, Epic reasons the law will “become meaningless” and won’t truly benefit consumers or developers.
Epic founder and CEO Tim Sweeney also joined in on X, referring to the “new junk fee structure in the EU.” He goes on to insist that Apple is still “unlawfully charging” for linked-out transactions, which he says are prohibited under the DMA.
Apple also adds “prohibitions and friction” to coerce kids into paying the higher App Store fees.
Sweeney also took a swipe at a Bloomberg report on the matter, believing that Apple’s PR team convinced the publication into using a “false narrative” headline.
To Sweeney, the story spins the changes into being “part of a settlement (it’s not), and compliant with EU law (it’s not).”
On the “settlement” element, Bloomberg does use the word “settle” in the headline, as Apple is trying to settle the EU fee problem. This isn’t a settlement, as in to stop a lawsuit, but more to try and quell complaints from a regulator.
In Apple’s press release, the changes resolve Apple’s disagreements with the Commission on the matter.
What the DMA says
Part of the problem with the argument is that the Digital Markets Act’s language isn’t exactly clear on whether Apple is or isn’t permitted to collect fees for externally bought apps in this way.
Searching through the text of the Digital Markets Act, there’s one section that states:
The gatekeeper shall allow business users, free of charge, to communicate and promote offers, including under different conditions, to end users acquired via its core platform service or through other channels, and to conclude contracts with those end users, regardless of whether, for that purpose, they use the core platform services of the gatekeeper.
Depending on the interpretation of this line, Apple could potentially charge fees for actions that aren’t the transaction itself. This explains the previous existence of the 2% Initial Acquisition Fee from the 2025 version of the fees.
Continuing the fee fight
Epic Games and Apple’s long-running lawsuit over App Store fees in the United States is a fairly similar disagreement, at least in topic.
On August 13, Apple provided a District Court with proposed fees for external App Store purchases, in an attempt to finally end the lawsuit. Fees were proposed, ranging from 15% for standard apps that would be subject to a 30% in-app purchase commission, to 5% for developers under the Small Business Program.
Again, Epic immediately and publicly responded, insisting the fees were outside court guidance on permissible fees.
While the EU changes are a different venue than a U.S. courtroom, Epic’s view on the matter is still the same. The fees are just too high in its opinion.