For years, Apple and Google controlled how mobile game developers processed payments, communicated alternative purchase options, and paid platform fees.
That system is changing. Epic’s legal battles with Apple and Google, combined with enforcement of the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), have expanded payment and distribution options for developers. They have also created a more fragmented regulatory environment, where the rules increasingly vary by platform and region.
For mobile studios, the practical question is no longer simply whether app-store fees are too high. It is which payment, distribution, and compliance model applies in each market.
At a glance
- Google settled with Epic in March 2026. Google’s revised Play service-fee structure distinguishes between recurring subscriptions, other digital purchases, new installations, existing installations, and participating developer programs. Google’s published rollout schedule began with the US, UK, and European Economic Area on June 30, 2026.
- Google’s external-content-link program is not a fee-free option in all cases. Google’s current documentation describes reporting obligations and service fees, although the exact collection and transition rules depend on the applicable program and rollout stage.
- Apple’s US position remains legally unsettled. A court order currently prevents Apple from imposing a commission or fee on purchases consumers make outside an app, but Apple has appealed, and the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case.
- The EU’s Digital Markets Act forces both platforms to allow steering and alternative payment methods across the whole bloc, with its own fee structure that differs from the US.
- Lower platform fees do not remove tax, fraud, chargeback, or consumer-protection obligations.
What these changes mean for mobile game studios
Historically, both Apple and Google have used a headline 30% commission on many in-app purchases, with reduced rates available in some programs for smaller developers.
The applicable fee now depends on factors such as platform, market, billing model, developer program, subscription type, and in some Google Play programs, when the app was installed.
For a live-service game, the affected products may include:
- Premium currency
- Cosmetic items
- Battle passes
- Season passes
- Recurring subscriptions
- Downloadable digital content
- Other virtual goods and digital services
The commercial impact can be significant, but a lower platform fee doesn’t automatically produce higher net revenue. Before evaluating whether a web shop or alternative billing model makes sense, it’s important to understand how the current rules differ by platform and region.
Fees and rules by platform
The following table summarizes current frameworks and known uncertainties. Developers should always verify the latest platform terms before implementation.
|
Fees and rules by platform
|
||
| Platform and market | Payment or distribution method | Published or current framework |
| Apple, US | External link to a website | A US court order currently bars Apple from imposing a commission or fee on purchases consumers make outside an app. Apple has appealed, and the US Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case. Treat the position as provisional. |
| Google Play, US | External-content link | Google’s current documentation lists 10% for recurring subscriptions, 20% for other digital offers involving new installations, and 25% for other digital offers involving existing installations under the standard schedule. Eligible programs can reduce some rates to 15% or 20%, and the first US $1 million of annual earnings may qualify for a 10% rate. |
| Google Play, US/UK/EEA | Google Play service-fee and billing programs | Google’s published rollout table lists June 30, 2026 for the US, UK, and EEA; later dates apply to other regions. Some rates may be described as applying “plus billing fee, if applicable,” so developers must check the specific program terms. |
| Apple, EU | App Store distribution under alternative business terms | Apple describes a reduced commission of 10% or 17%, depending on the applicable transaction and developer terms. Use of Apple’s payment processing can add a 3% payment-processing fee. Developers using an alternative payment provider or linking to a website may avoid that additional Apple processing fee, but other Apple charges can still apply. |
| Apple, EU | Alternative marketplaces or web distribution | Apple allows qualifying developers to distribute iOS and iPadOS apps through alternative app marketplaces or an authorized developer website, subject to the Alternative Terms Addendum, eligibility requirements, reporting, and applicable technology or distribution charges. |
| Apple, Japan and Brazil | Alternative payment processing or out-of-app offers | Apple’s developer agreement contains separate terms for qualifying apps in Japan and Brazil, including commissions that may differ from the EU and US frameworks. Developers should not apply EU or US rates to these markets automatically. |
| Other markets | App-store billing, alternative billing, or web checkout | Rules vary by jurisdiction. Japan’s Mobile Software Competition Act and other national regimes may create additional obligations, but availability and fees must be checked separately for each storefront and app category. |
Should mobile game studios build a web shop?
This is the practical question behind most of the details above, and it deserves a direct answer: for any live-service or free-to-play title with meaningful recurring purchases, a web shop is worth testing, but not necessarily launching at full scale immediately.
A good approach would be to:
- Start with users who already purchase premium currency, subscriptions, or season passes
- Test a limited web-shop experience in markets where the relevant platform rules clearly allow it
- Measure completed purchases, not just link clicks
- Include payment-processing fees, taxes, refunds, fraud, chargebacks, and support costs in the model
- Compare the web-shop contribution margin with the contribution margin from in-app purchases.
Revenue retention is only part of the equation. A web shop can also help studios build a direct relationship with players through first-party customer data and consented marketing communications. That can make it easier to promote season passes, expansions, premium currency, and other offers through owned channels rather than relying exclusively on app-store discovery and merchandising.
Why lower fees don’t remove your operational workload
Every one of these rulings addresses commission and steering. None of them touch what happens after a player clicks pay.
A studio, or its payment provider, if they work with one, will still need to manage things like:
- VAT, GST, sales tax, and digital-services tax
- Tax calculation and remittance
- Fraud screening
- Refunds and chargebacks
- Consumer-protection requirements
- Local payment methods
- Currency conversion
- Data protection and marketing consent
A merchant of record may take responsibility for some of these functions. The exact allocation depends on the provider’s contract, so studios should review the legal and operational terms rather than assuming a merchant of record solves every compliance issue.
This is often the point where studios discover that running an external checkout is not primarily a payments challenge. It’s an operational and compliance challenge.
If your studio is evaluating a web shop, external checkout, or app-to-web purchase flow, talk to our team or explore the 2Checkout platform to see how it handles the tax, fraud, and compliance side so you can focus on the player experience.
What developers should prepare for next
For studios operating live-service games, the ability to adapt checkout and monetization strategies by market may become a competitive advantage.
The bigger shift isn’t just lower commissions; it’s strategic choice. Studios now have more options for how they monetize players across mobile, web, and other channels than they did even a year ago. But with that flexibility comes greater complexity, as payment rules increasingly differ by platform and jurisdiction.
Studios should:
- Map rules by country and storefront. Do not apply US terms to the EU, or EU terms to Japan or Brazil.
- Separate current rates from scheduled rates. A published future rollout date is not the same as a fee that is already being collected.
- Model the complete payment stack before you commit to a fee strategy, not just the headline rate.
- Measure conversion friction. A lower commission only helps if players complete the external purchase.
- Keep the checkout architecture flexible. Platform rules, legislation, and court orders may change again.
- Monitor the Apple Supreme Court case. The outcome could affect the US rules governing external purchase links and Apple’s ability to charge fees.
- Review developer agreements before launch. Current terms may differ by app, region, entitlement, program, and transaction type.
The most durable advantage may not be a particular commission rate. It may be the ability to operate several compliant payment channels and move between them as platform rules change.
Frequently asked questions
-
Did Apple lose its case against Epic Games?
Apple lost on the narrower anti-steering issue but was not found to be an illegal monopolist in the main district-court ruling.
The court ordered Apple to allow certain external links or calls to action directing users to alternative purchasing methods. The later contempt dispute concerns Apple’s compliance with that injunction, including the commission it attempted to impose on purchases connected with external links.
-
Did Epic Games win against Google?
Epic won its main jury trial against Google in 2023, and Google and Epic settled the US litigation in March 2026.
In December 2023, a jury found Google liable on Epic’s antitrust claims involving Android app distribution and Google Play billing. Google later lost key parts of its appeal, and the parties subsequently reached a settlement. The settlement resolved the Epic litigation, but it did not eliminate Google’s separate regulatory obligations under laws such as the EU Digital Markets Act.
-
What is the difference between alternative billing and an external payment link?
Alternative billing completes the purchase inside the app using a payment system other than the platform’s billing system. An external payment link sends the user outside the app to a website or another external destination to complete the purchase.
These options can have different eligibility rules, reporting requirements, technical requirements, and fees. A studio should not assume that the fee for alternative billing is the same as the fee for an external web checkout.
-
What is Apple’s current external-payment fee in the United States?
There is currently no Apple commission or fee on qualifying external-link purchases under the applicable court remedy. However, this is not a permanent Apple pricing policy: Apple is challenging the remedy before the Supreme Court.
Developers should not model the US rate as permanently equal to zero until the litigation is resolved. The relevant Apple developer terms and court orders should be checked before launch.
-
Does Google charge a fee on external payment links?
Google’s external-content-link program is not a universally fee-free channel. Developers using the program must follow Google’s enrollment, reporting, and transaction requirements, and Google’s documentation describes applicable service fees.
The exact amount depends on the transaction, installation category, developer program, and rollout rules for the relevant market. Google’s US documentation was updated on July 22, 2026, so developers should use the current program page rather than assume that all external-link transactions carry a 0% fee.
-
Which countries allow external payment links or alternative billing?
The United States and European Union currently have important but different frameworks for external payment options. Japan and Brazil also have separate Apple payment provisions, while other countries may impose their own app-store or competition requirements.
Because fees, eligibility, reporting, and rollout dates vary, developers should verify the current platform terms for every market before launching an external checkout. There is no single worldwide alternative-billing rule.
-
What is a merchant of record, and why would a game studio use one?
A merchant of record is the legal seller on a transaction, taking on tax calculation and remittance, fraud and chargeback liability, and some regulatory compliance on your behalf. For a studio building an external or web-based checkout for the first time, it removes the need to build that infrastructure internally.
