Epic Games has filed its response to Apple’s request for the court to order settlement talks in the long-running App Store lawsuit. Here are the details.

Last Thursday, Apple submitted its proposed commission structure for in-app purchases made outside of the App Store system in the US.

Under Apple’s proposed structure, the company would charge commissions of up to 15% on purchases completed through alternative payment systems.

On the same day, Apple submitted another motion, asking Judge Gonzalez Rogers to order the parties to attend a settlement conference.

In its motion, Apple said that “discussions of a potential settlement in a confidential, non-adversarial setting would increase the likelihood of reaching a practical resolution that could obviate the need for prolonged remand proceedings.”

Epic has now responded to Apple’s motion, stating that although the company “has been, and remains today, willing to entertain any direct approach from Apple with a serious settlement proposal that would introduce competition and benefit all developers,” it “does not believe the prospects of such settlement would be meaningfully advanced through referral to a settlement conference at this juncture.”

In its response, the company adds that “should [the] Court order referral to a settlement conference, Epic will participate in good faith.”

It is now up to Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers to decide whether to refer the case to a settlement conference, which Apple has requested to be held under the supervision of Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero.

You can read Epic’s full response below:

Apple has repeatedly attempted to narrow the scope of Judge Gonzalez Rogers’s injunction regarding purchases made outside the App Store. In particular, Apple has argued that because Epic’s lawsuit is not a class action, the injunction should not broadly apply to other developers.

During one of its appeals, for instance, Apple argued that developers seeking similar relief could bring their own lawsuits rather than benefit from the injunction in the Epic case. The Ninth Circuit rejected Apple’s attempt to narrow the injunction on those grounds, finding that limiting it to Epic and its affiliates would not provide Epic with the complete relief it seeks.

That reasoning also aligns with Epic’s public position throughout much of the case, that its fight extends beyond its own business interests and is intended to benefit developers more broadly.

In its motion to refer the case to (confidential) settlement talks, Apple does not indicate what it might offer. However, anyone following this case closely would likely agree that Apple would probably seek a deal that is particularly attractive to Epic, while limiting any concessions to Epic only.

In fact, Epic’s response already preempts this notion, by stating that Apple’s “serious settlement proposal” would have to “benefit all developers,” while concluding its response by suggesting that Apple’s efforts might be too little, too late.

If you were Apple, what would you offer Epic Games? Let us know in the comments.

• Geoffrey Cain – ‘Steve Jobs in Exile’
• David Pogue – ’Apple: The First 50 Years’
• MacBook Neo
• Logitech MX Master 4
• AirPods Pro 3
• AirTag (2nd Generation) – 4 Pack
• Apple Watch Series 11
• Wireless CarPlay adapter