Posted on February 18, 2026 by Support RMWebLab

App Store Fee Structure Review: Increasing Scrutiny on Apple and Google

The digital marketplace landscape is undergoing a significant shift as regulators, developers, and consumers heighten oversight of the commission structures imposed by tech giants Apple and Google. The continuing review of commission structures in app stores has emerged as a central concern in the debate over digital competition, market fairness, and innovation. With both companies charging up to 30% on in-app purchases and subscriptions, critics argue these fees hinder market competition and increase prices for consumers. This article analyzes the escalating legal challenges, regulatory actions, and industry responses redefining how app stores operate financially, explores the implications for app makers and customers around the world, and analyzes possible scenarios that could significantly alter how digital platforms operate in the future.

The Existing Status of App Store Commission Percentages

Apple and Google now control the mobile app distribution ecosystem, each following similar commission structures that have stayed largely the same for over a decade. Apple’s App Store and Google’s Play Store both levy a standard 30% commission on most digital products and services sold through apps, including in-app purchases, subscriptions, and paid app downloads. This rate pertains to the first year of subscription revenue, dropping to 15% for subsequent years. However, both companies introduced reduced rates in recent years: Apple created its Small Business Program in 2020, offering a 15% commission for developers generating less than $1 million annually, while Google established a similar 15% commission for the first $1 million in annual revenue across all developers in 2021.

The app store fee structure examination has escalated as these fees create considerable earnings for both tech giants, with Apple’s App Store believed to have enabled over $1 trillion in sales and charges in 2022. Developers have consistently challenged these commission rates, maintaining they are an unfair tax on innovation and negatively impact smaller companies. The 30% standard has grown especially controversial for online content companies, gaming companies, and recurring billing services, where margins are often constrained. Physical goods purchases are free from these commissions, establishing what detractors call an arbitrary distinction that benefits particular structures over others while restricting pricing freedom in pricing strategies.

Beyond the commission percentages themselves, the mandatory nature of these payment systems has sparked considerable controversy. Apple requires iOS developers to utilize its In-App Purchase platform for digital goods, blocking alternative payment methods and preventing developers from guiding users toward external payment options. Google maintains similar restrictions on Android, though with slightly more flexibility in certain markets. These policies essentially establish closed ecosystems where platform owners control both distribution and monetization, leaving developers with limited alternatives. The combination of high commission rates and payment restrictions has prompted numerous lawsuits and regulatory investigations worldwide, fundamentally questioning whether current app store practices constitute anticompetitive conduct.

Regulatory Pressure and Judicial Challenges Around the World

The global terrain for digital marketplace commission structures has turned increasingly disputed as authorities and regulators globally initiate investigations into Apple and Google’s business practices. Numerous countries have launched comprehensive reviews examining whether the major players exploit their dominant standing through excessive commission rates and restrictive policies. These investigations signal a global coordination effort to tackle concerns about digital marketplace monopolization, with authorities exchanging information and coordinating enforcement tactics. The growing pressure reflects a fundamental shift in how regulators assess corporate dominance, shifting away from hands-off approaches to regulatory action in e-commerce. Platform users, consumer advocacy groups, and rival companies have provided extensive testimony endorsing the requirement for regulatory intervention and reform.

Legal disputes have expanded across continents, with pivotal decisions challenging the legality of required payment mechanisms and fee arrangements. Courts in different regions are examining whether app store policies breach competition laws, consumer protection statutes, and fair trading regulations. The app store commission policy review has picked up pace as enforcement agencies understand the worldwide scope of digital platforms and the requirement for coordinated responses. High-profile lawsuits have uncovered internal documents and communications that regulators contend show anticompetitive intent and market manipulation. These legal proceedings have already resulted in court orders, consent decrees, and settlements that signal major shifts ahead. The overall result of international regulatory pressure creates unparalleled pressure on both companies to substantially rethink their fee structures and operational frameworks.

European Union’s Digital Markets Act

The European Union’s Digital Markets Act represents the most extensive regulatory framework specifically targeting major tech companies classified as “gatekeepers.” Introduced in 2022 and implemented starting March 2024, the DMA imposes strict duties on Apple and Google regarding their app store activities, including requirements to permit alternative payment systems and third-party app stores. The rules prevent self-preferential conduct and requires integration with rival platforms. Both companies are subject to possible penalties of reaching 10% of global annual revenue for non-compliance, with subsequent breaches possibly extending to 20%. The DMA’s extraterritorial reach signifies its provisions affect how these platforms operate globally, not just within EU borders. European regulators have already opened formal investigations into both companies’ compliance efforts, indicating strong enforcement intentions.

Implementation of the DMA has generated substantial debate, with Apple and Google rolling out compliance solutions that critics argue maintain their competitive edge through alternative fee structures. Apple’s “Core Technology Fee” for EU developers and Google’s modified commission arrangements have attracted regulatory attention for arguably undermining the law’s purpose. The European Commission has fielded multiple grievances from developers arguing that the updated structures fail to provide meaningful alternatives to the traditional commission model. Ongoing investigations investigate whether the companies’ responses constitute true compliance or malicious adherence created to maintain their income sources. The results of these regulatory efforts will set significant standards for how digital platform regulations work in actual implementation and how well statutory rules are able to limit dominant platforms’ market power and commercial strategies. (Source: https://britfact.co.uk/)

U.S. Competition Investigations

United States competition regulators have initiated several inquiries into digital marketplace conduct, with both the DOJ and FTC investigating suspected breaches of competitive regulations. The DOJ’s ongoing lawsuit against Google, initiated in 2023, specifically focuses on Play Store policies and commission structures as part of wider monopoly allegations. Similarly, the FTC has investigated thoroughly Apple’s App Store rules, particularly limitations on third-party payment options and interactions with users. State attorneys general have supported federal investigations, with state alliances pursuing similar legal cases seeking structural remedies. Congressional hearings have showcased accounts from developers describing how payment policies damage their operations and limit consumer choice. These probes have produced extensive documentary evidence that regulators argue demonstrates deliberate strategies to preserve market dominance through anticompetitive commission structures.

The Epic Games versus Apple trial, concluded in 2021 with ongoing appeals, has become a focal point for the application store commission examination in the U.S.. While the court rejected most of Epic’s claims, it did determine Apple violated California’s unfair competition law by prohibiting developers from guiding users toward alternative payment options. The ruling’s implementation has been delayed pending legal appeals, generating doubt about when meaningful changes could take place. Google confronts a comparable legal action from Epic, with a jury verdict in late 2023 finding the firm maintained illegal monopolies in application distribution and application billing. These cases have generated substantial public documentation disclosing internal platform strategies and economic analyses of commission effects. The legal outcomes will significantly influence whether legislative action proves essential to address application store dominance and fee structures effectively.

Asian marketplace Regulatory Measures

South Korea became the first country to enact legislation explicitly banning app store operators from compelling developers to utilize proprietary payment systems, with its “anti-Google law” taking effect in September 2021. The legislation allows developers to integrate alternative payment processors, though both Apple and Google implemented compliance measures that maintain reduced commission rates on transactions processed outside their systems. Korean regulators have fined both companies for multiple infractions and continue monitoring their compliance with the new framework. Japan reached a voluntary agreement with Apple in 2021 allowing “reader” apps to connect to external websites for account management, though broader reforms remain being discussed. These actions demonstrate Asian regulators’ readiness to actively intervene in platform business models and question commission structures that other regions have historically tolerated without significant intervention.

China, India, and other major Asian markets have implemented or proposed regulations impacting app store operations and commission policies. China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology has issued guidelines prohibiting platforms from compelling payment system usage and requiring interoperability between app stores. India’s Competition Commission has investigated both Apple and Google for alleged abuse of dominance, with ongoing cases examining commission rates and restrictive policies. Indonesia and Vietnam have enacted digital platform regulations that contain provisions affecting app distribution and payment processing. These diverse regulatory approaches demonstrate regional priorities weighing platform innovation benefits against concerns about market concentration and developer exploitation. The combined impact of Asian regulatory actions generates additional pressure on Apple and Google to create globally sustainable commission models that accommodate varying regulatory requirements while maintaining their business viability and platform ecosystem health.

Developer Feedback and Market Response

The app store commission framework assessment has intensified as developers worldwide voice mounting frustrations over required commission rates. Smaller independent developers particularly contend with the 30% commission rate, contending it significantly erodes their profit margins and limits growth investment opportunities. Industry leaders including Epic Games and Spotify have emerged as prominent critics, launching public campaigns and litigation against what they portray as monopoly-like conduct. Many developers assert that the major platforms leverage their dominant positions to impose unfair terms, prevent alternative payment options, and preserve monopolistic dominance over app marketplaces.

Elevated commission fees diminish developer revenue and restrict business growth opportunities significantly.
Mandatory use of proprietary payment systems prevents developers from delivering competitive alternatives.
Review mechanisms generate delays and uncertainty that impact product launches adversely.
Discovery difficulties advantage established apps while disadvantaging smaller development teams regularly.
Restrictive policies prohibit direct customer relationships and limit promotional avenues substantially.
Policy modifications take place without consultation without adequate developer consultation or transition periods.

Business groups have formed to raise developer voices and champion structural change. The Coalition for App Fairness, comprising companies like Epic, Spotify, Basecamp, and Tile, has conducted coordinated lobbying in various regions. These groups maintain that app store policies damage innovation, customer choice, and economic opportunity. Simultaneously, some developers acknowledge benefits including security systems, transaction handling, and distribution channels. However, the prevailing sentiment requires more openness, reduced fees, and additional payment choices. This combined effort has catalyzed regulatory reviews and legislative measures internationally, substantially questioning the conventional app distribution model.

Alternative Payment Methods and Solutions

As the app store commission policy review accelerates globally, developers have increasingly explored alternative payment systems to bypass the traditional 30% fees imposed by Apple and Google. Some companies direct users to external websites for subscriptions or purchases, bypassing in-app payment mechanisms entirely. Others have implemented innovative approaches such as offering different pricing tiers for web-based versus app-based transactions, successfully delivering discounts to consumers who choose direct payment methods. Epic Games notably attempted to introduce a proprietary payment solution within Fortnite, triggering its high-profile legal battle with Apple. These workarounds demonstrate developer frustration with existing commission structures and their willingness to push back against platform limitations despite potential consequences including app removal.

The impact of these alternative solutions varies significantly depending on jurisdiction and platform policies. While some jurisdictions have mandated Apple and Google to allow third-party payment options following regulatory action, deployment proves intricate and often includes balanced arrangements. Apple’s link-sharing permissions, for instance, still impose reduced commissions on purchases made outside the app marketplace. Developers must carefully weigh the advantages of lower commissions against possible user experience issues, compliance costs, and the threat of decreased app visibility or complete removal from stores. As legal frameworks continue evolving, the feasibility and uptake of alternative payment systems will likely expand, fundamentally reshaping the business relationship between platforms and developers.

Comparative Review of Fee Structures

The app store commission policy review has uncovered significant variations in fee structures across various online marketplaces, highlighting the dominance of Apple and Google’s models. While both tech giants maintain a typical 30% fee on most transactions, competing services have appeared with lower commission structures. Understanding these differences provides important insight for developers evaluating market outlets and for regulators assessing market fairness. The competitive overview demonstrates that reduced fees are financially sustainable, questioning the necessity of the prevailing industry standard.

Platform	Standard Commission	Reduced Rate Programs	Important Requirements
Apple’s App Store	30%	15% (Small Business Program)	Below $1M in yearly revenue
Google’s Play Store	30%	15% (first $1M earnings)	Automatic for all developers
Epic Games Store	12%	N/A	Uniform rate across all developers
Microsoft Store	12%	N/A	Lowered from the previous 30%

Alternative marketplaces like Epic Games Store and the revamped Microsoft Store have deliberately established themselves as alternatives favored by developers by adopting 12% commission rates. These competitive structures demonstrate that platform operators can operate profitably while offering significantly reduced fees. Epic’s model, in particular, has gained traction among prominent development studios seeking to maximize revenue retention. The success of these alternatives exerts greater pressure on Apple and Google to defend their elevated commission rates during active regulatory examinations.

The side-by-side evaluation emphasizes a fundamental tension between proprietary oversight and market competition. Apple and Google argue their higher commissions demonstrate significant expenditures in security, infrastructure, and developer tools that generate benefits for the entire ecosystem. However, opponents maintain these rationales cannot fully justify the substantial gap between their fee structures and those of rising alternatives. As the app store commission policy review advances worldwide, these fundamental distinctions will potentially affect regulatory decisions and could drive market-wide realignment of fee structures toward enhanced competition.