In this week's Sunday Reboot, Apple employs weird delay tactics for its Epic lawsuit filing. Meanwhile, Epic still doesn't think Apple's proposals go far enough.
Sunday Reboot is a weekly column covering some of the lighter stories within the Apple reality distortion field from the past seven days. All to get the next week underway with a good first step.
Playing courts for time
I have been covering the Apple-Epic lawsuit saga for about half of my tenure here at AppleInsider. It's a source of news that, despite its regularity, doesn't seem to be scraping the bottom of the barrel quite yet.
In the last week, there were a series of updates that are interesting, if not entirely groundbreaking. Specifically, delays, availability, and fees.
Let's start with delays, because they can make a big impact in a legal case.
Back in May, Apple and Epic agreed on a pre-court schedule for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. It was a schedule set so that Apple and Epic could negotiate new commission rates for app transactions handled outside of the App Store, referred to as "linked-out purchases."
At the time, it was outlined that Apple would have 45 days to file a "proffer," namely a good-faith offer of evidence, testimony, and other elements to the court. This would propose commission rates for purchases, including why they were set at specific levels, in a neat 30-page document.
After that, Apple would hand Epic all non-privileged documents about the decision-making process and a privilege log, within ten days. Within five days of that, Apple and Epic would then meet up to discuss the privilege log, and to determine what documents would go under third-party review.
Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney
The schedule then continues with Epic filing its own response to Apple's proffer, again in a 30-page document. That has a timeline of within 60 days of Apple's proffer filing or Apple's completion of document production, whichever happens last.
It's still not over, as the schedule then has another 30-day period for Apple to respond to Epic's response, with a 15-page limit. At that point, the court holds a status conference to determine what happens next.
The continuing game of litigious table tennis was supposed to hit that first 45-day proffer deadline this week, and it did. Except Apple asked for a stay on it on Tuesday, to delay things further.
The court decided Apple had more than enough time, so it gave the legal team just 24 hours to come up with something. On Wednesday, Apple then got another 24 hours approved.
Tim Sweeney, the CEO and founder of Epic Games, took the news in his stride. And by that, I mean gleefully taking to X.
He mused if Apple would honestly document the costs for human reviewer time in the proposal. Or if not, if Apple will "fabricate outlandish new notions of cost previously unknown to mankind."
Will Apple honestly document their costs for human reviewer time and seek to recoup them? Or fabricate outlandish new notions of cost previously unknown to mankind? Tune in 24 hours from now to find out.
— Tim Sweeney (@TimSweeneyEpic) August 11, 2026
It seems that a second 24-hour period was enough for Apple to finally submit something on Thursday.
It is truly astounding that a major company like Apple and its well-paid legal team would ask for a long stay after a 45-day deadline for a 30 page document's creation.
But at the same time, it seems weird that it would get what amounts to 48 hours of extra time to work on the project, and it managed to hand something in.
We don't know why the delay was requested, nor what was stopping Apple from actually filing the proffer on time. But it has the feel of an attempt to deliberately push back as some sort of high-level legal strategy.
Courtroom-based foot-dragging, if you will.
At least, that would be the better way of viewing it. At worst, it could've been someone procrastinating on the 30-page book report about the most niche topic imaginable, and then rushed to put it together at the last minute.
Has anyone told a court "the dog ate their filing" before?
Fee cuts, but they're never enough
The actual point of the filing is for Apple to detail its proposed external commission rates. The original proposal of 27% versus the 30% App Store commission was no bueno, and Apple had to do more.
The new proposal is much better for developers, in that the percentages are far lower:
- 15% for standard apps that would face the usual 30% App Store fee
- 10% for subscription renewals as well as the Video Partner Program, the News Partner Program, and the Mini Apps Partner Program
- 5% for Small Business Program apps
So, on the good side, those fees are lower so developers should earn a tiny bit more revenue. On the bad side, at least to Epic, those fees are still too high.
In an X post, Epic's Newsroom feed said that even these concessions are "far outside the bounds of the Ninth Circuit's guidance on permissible fees."
An image from an Epic Games video mocking Apple's 1984 ad - Image Credit: Epic Games
It's good that Epic still has an opinion, but it doesn't say how much those fees should be just yet. I get the feeling that the closer to 0%, the better, when it comes to Epic's preferred fee level.
Alas, we won't know exactly how much until Epic files its reply. That's going to take another 60 days at most.
Unless there are more attempts to delay filings in the court.
There's no chance of that happening. Surely
Last week's Sunday Reboot talked about OpenAI's hardware leak and an astoundingly cheap "Ted Lasso" promotion.
