Skip to main content

Antitrust

See All Stories

There are growing concerns that Apple could be facing an anti-trust investigation by the US Department of Justice.

Apple faces antitrust worries

What does antitrust mean?

In most jurisdictions around the world, it is illegal for large companies to band together to form agreements or “trusts” to behave in a particular way – for example, to all sell their products for the same high price. Laws designed to outlaw this type of behavior are called antitrust legislation.

However, the term is used more generally to refer to laws designed to prevent companies from engaging in any kind of anti-competitive action – that is, do anything that would tend to artificially distort competition within a market.

One common myth is that antitrust laws only apply to monopolies. This is very much not the case: They apply to any company large enough to have a dominant position in any market. As we shall see below, the definition of the word “market” can be crucial to deciding whether antitrust concerns arise.

Why is Apple facing antitrust investigations?

First, Apple is a very large company, and it would be very easy for a company of that size to commit antitrust violations, so it is to be expected that any massive corporation would be put under the antitrust microscope.

But in Apple’s case, there are some more specific concerns based on the company”s market dominance in particular areas. These are addressed below.

What are the antitrust concerns with Apple?

There are a number of different ones, in areas as diverse as ad tracking and Sign In With Apple, but here are three of the main ones.

The App Store

The biggest antitrust concern is the App Store.

Apple argues that it does not have a dominant position in this market, as it considers the relevant market to be either “smartphones” or “apps.” Since the company holds a minority share of the smartphone market in most of the countries in which it operates, it believes it cannot be considered to have a dominant position.

Competition regulators tend to take the view that the relevant market is “iOS apps,” and here Apple has a 100% monopoly on their sale and distribution. Edge cases aside, there is no way for a developer to bring an iOS app to market without selling it through the App Store.

Companies like Epic Games argue that they should be allowed to sell in-app purchases without Apple taking a cut of their revenue. The argument here is that Apple harms developers by taking part of their income, and consumers by forcing developers to charge more to make up for Apple’s cut. Apple, in response, says that it is perfectly normal for a company to take a cut of the sales it facilitates.

Default apps

Additionally, some companies accuse Apple of anti-competitive behavior by giving its own apps advantages over third-party ones.

One way that Apple does this, they say, is by pre-installing its own apps. For example, when the Apple Weather app is already installed on an iPhone when you buy it, then Apple’s own app has an obvious advantage over a competing app.

There is overlap here with the App Store concerns. For example, Apple Music and Spotify are competitors, but not only is Apple Music preinstalled, you can subscribe from within the app. If Spotify offered this same ability, it would have to pay Apple a 30% cut. Spotify can’t afford this, so users are forced to take a more long-winded route to subscription, which gives Apple Music an additional competitive advantage.

Relationships with carriers and retailers

Apple has also been found guilty in more than one country of exploiting a dominant position within the smartphone market to place undue demands on carriers and retailers.

Because the popularity of iPhones meant carriers had to sell them, Apple was able to dictate terms. In South Korea, for example, it was accused of imposing three onerous conditions on local carriers:

  • Carriers had to buy minimum quantities of each model, dictated by Apple
  • Carriers had to share the cost of warranty repairs or replacements
  • Carriers had to pay to run Apple’s own TV ads for the iPhone

Budget-focused carriers might, for example, want to buy only older and cheaper models, as that’s what their customers want, but Apple would force them to buy flagship models, too. And if a phone proved faulty, Apple wouldn’t just replace it, but would oblige carriers to meet some of the costs. Finally, although carriers had to pay the full cost of running iPhone ads on TV, they were only allowed to use Apple’s own ads, and the only thing they were permitted to change was adding their own logo to the final frame.

Additional areas of concern range from Apple Pay to a 4K video codec alliance!

What could happen to Apple as a result?

Antitrust outcomes will usually happen on a country-by-country basis, though there are exceptions. In Europe, for example, it is likely that the European Union will act as a bloc, and that any legislation applying to Apple will apply across all 27 member countries.

The worst-case scenario for Apple is for the US government to call for the breakup of the company. For example, it might be ruled that Apple Inc cannot run an App Store while also selling the iPhones on which those apps run. This is not a likely outcome, however.

A more likely scenario is a series of smaller changes. For example, Apple might be required to appoint an independent oversight board to carry out app reviews, or that it must allow Spotify to offer in-app subscriptions without taking a cut.

How is Apple responding?

In public, Apple’s stance is an outraged one, arguing that it does not have a dominant position and is doing nothing wrong. Behind closed doors, the company is aware that it either has to change some of its practices, or be forced to do so by law.

For example, while publicly declaring that a 30% commission on apps was industry standard, Apple made a massive U-turn by introducing the Small Business Program, with a 15% commission instead. Although touted as applying to the smallest developers, it in fact applies to 98% of them. It would be more accurate to say that the App Store now has a standard commission rate of 15%, with a higher 30% rate applying only to a tiny minority of companies.

The company has also quietly made a number of other changes in direct response to antitrust concerns, for example, opening up the Find My app to third-party accessories, and allowing people to change their default email app and web browser.

However, Apple is still sticking its head in the sand and hoping the issue will go away – when it absolutely won’t.

Microsoft could offer one of the first third-party app stores on iPhones

Third-party app stores | Microsoft Xbox store shown

It was confirmed back in September that Apple will need to comply with antitrust requirements relating to app sales, and it seems most likely this will require the company to allow third-party app stores on iPhones. Microsoft has now indicated its intention to run one of these.

One key driver for the plan is likely Microsoft’s $69 billion acquisition of mobile gaming giant Activision Blizzard …

Expand Expanding Close

Apple’s RCS announcement date wasn’t coincidence, and is good insurance

Apple's RCS announcement | 3D green chat bubble

Yesterday’s Apple RCS u-turn came as a big surprise, as the company had previously indicated that it had no plans to support the rich communication services (RCS) messaging standard.

But while the announcement itself was a surprise, the timing of it was not a coincidence – and represents a rare example of Apple (sort of) getting ahead of antitrust legislation …

Expand Expanding Close

Google payments to be default search engine totalled $26B; execs wanted to reduce Apple’s cut [U]

Google payment to Apple | Android phone making GPay payment

Update: Google wanted to keep the sum confidential, but a judge just ordered that the total sum paid – across Apple and other platforms – should be disclosed in the ongoing antitrust case. More at the bottom.

A new report says that the growing size of the Google payment to Apple to remain the default search engine on Apple devices concerned senior execs at the search giant – and they wanted to use EU law as a mechanism to reduce it …

Expand Expanding Close

Apple search payment is the heart of the antitrust case against Google, says judge

Apple money

While the Department of Justice has accused Google of a range of anti-competitive behaviors, the judge in the case has said that the Apple search payment is “the heart” of the matter.

The implication is clear. If that deal is illegal, then Google will lose the case, and the company may have to be broken up. Conversely, if the court finds that the payment was legal, then Google likely wins, as the other charges are comparatively minor …

Expand Expanding Close

Korean antitrust regulators find Apple and Google guilty of anti-competitive behavior

Korean antitrust regulators | Seoul skyscrapers at sunset

Apple’s long-running battle with Korean antitrust regulators is showing no signs of ending any time soon.

In the latest development, the Korea Communications Commission (KCC) has found both Apple and Google guilty of anti-competitive behavior, required changes to their respective app store policies, and warned of possible fines …

Expand Expanding Close

Lawyer objects to claims about how much Google pays Apple to be default search engine

How much Google pays Apple to be default search engine | Stacks of bank notes

A lawyer representing Apple has objected to claims made in court about how much Google pays the Cupertino company to be the default search engine on iPhones and other devices.

The objection was made in a major antitrust case against the search giant, which could see the Department of Justice force the breakup of the company into separate businesses …

Expand Expanding Close

Digital Markets Act antitrust law does include App Store, as Apple fights on iMessage

Digital Markets Act antitrust law | Apple logo in rendered glass slab

The European Union has now named the six tech giants whose services will be subject to the Digital Markets Act antitrust law, with Apple as one of the so-called “gatekeepers.” It’s been confirmed that the App Store is subject to the law, while the status of iMessage remains under investigation.

In total, some 22 services operated by the the six companies are deemed sufficiently influential to be covered by law …

Expand Expanding Close

Apple’s treatment of small games developer makes a textbook antitrust case

Textbook antitrust case | Small business with Closed sign

Apple has voraciously denied accusations that the App Store has monopolistic control over iPhone apps, yet the company’s ability to unilaterally close developer accounts without explanation forms a textbook antitrust case.

One small games developer had its Apple Developer Program (ADP) account terminated without explanation, was unable to appeal as it hadn’t been told what accusations it needed to address, took Apple to court – and then had its account reinstated after five months of lost sales, still without explanation or apology …

Expand Expanding Close

Proposed Big Tech regulator would issue a revocable license to Apple and others

Proposed Big Tech regulator | Revoked stamp across Apple Park campus

A bi-partisan proposal by two US senators has argued for the creation of a federal Big Tech regulator, with wide-ranging enforcement powers. It would issue operating licenses to tech giants, which ultimately could be revoked in the event that a company repeatedly ignored its rulings.

Apple is directly referenced in a piece co-written by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D) and Sen. Lindsey Graham (R) …

Expand Expanding Close

Apple developer lawsuit – company says monopoly argument already rejected

Apple responds to developer lawsuit | Apps on iPhone connected to Mac

We yesterday learned of a billion-dollar Apple developer lawsuit, in which the iPhone maker was accused of “abusive” commissions on app sales. Apple has now responded to the antitrust claim, emphasizing that the judge in the Epic Games case rejected the argument that it has monopolistic powers.

The US ruling of course sets no precedent in the UK – where the latest case has been filed – but Apple also told us that, far from taking advantage of its position, it has instead only ever lowered commissions or created new exemptions …

Expand Expanding Close

Billion-dollar Apple lawsuit accuses company of ‘abusive’ commissions on app sales

Billion dollar Apple lawsuit | Photo of $100 bills

A billion-dollar Apple lawsuit has been filed on behalf of more than 1,500 app developers, accusing the company of “abusive” commission levels on app sales and subscriptions.

The antitrust lawsuit says that Apple’s monopoly on the sale and distribution of iOS apps means that it is able to set its own commission levels, and that developers have no choice but to accept it …

Expand Expanding Close

Apple-Amazon deal sees companies fined $218M by antitrust regulator in Spain

Apple-Amazon deal breaks Spanish law | Amazon app on iPhone 12

The controversial AppleAmazon deal struck back in 2018 has been found to be illegal by Spanish antitrust regulators, who have fined the company a total of $218M.

The investigation into alleged price-fixing took two years to complete, and follows similar ones in Germany and Italy – with concerns also expressed in the US …

Expand Expanding Close

Apple allowed to delay App Store changes as it appeals to Supreme Court

Apple App Store money

Apple recently appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers’ ruling in the case against Epic Games. As determined by the judge, the company would be forced to make some changes to the App Store rules. However, a district court allowed Apple to delay the changes until the appeal is heard by the Supreme Court.

Expand Expanding Close

Apple faces March 5 deadline for third-party app stores – but don’t hold your breath

Third-party app stores deadline | iPhone in case with rainbow Apple logo

Apple will have until March 5 next year to comply with Europe’s Digital Markets Act, which in theory means that it will have to permit either third-party app stores, or sideloading of apps, by that date.

The deadline has been revealed after Apple confirmed that it qualified as having “gatekeeper” status, meaning that it is one of the companies that will be subject to the upcoming law. However, don’t expect much to change on this date …

Expand Expanding Close

Latest Apple antitrust probe opens in Italy, over app privacy

Apple antitrust probe | App Store image

Another day, another Apple antitrust probe. Just yesterday we learned that the European Union was ramping up its investigation into Apple Pay, and today Italy’s competition watchdog has announced an investigation into the company’s App Store privacy policies.

This latest investigation may be new, but its topic is not: Italy is the third country to question the legality of Apple setting tougher privacy requirements for third-party apps than it does for its own apps …

Expand Expanding Close

UK antitrust case against Apple fails again; one more appeal possible

Antitrust case against Apple | 'No' slide from Apple keynote

A UK antitrust case against Apple has once again been thrown out, after an appeal tribunal ruled that the original decision was correct – that the UK’s competition watchdog had missed a legal deadline.

The ruling stands despite the fact that two Apple App Store policies were found to be anticompetitive, and even though the tribunal appeared to agree that its own decision was likely to have “undesirable or unfortunate results” …

Expand Expanding Close

Apple’s fight against iPhone sideloading was pointless at best, harmful at worst

iPhone sideloading | iPhone and Mac

Apple put up a lengthy fight against being forced to allow iPhone sideloading – the ability for owners to install apps directly from a developer’s website, in the same way we can a Mac app.

The company even went as far as arguing that Macs weren’t safe from malware because users can download apps directly. But ultimately the battle was pointless, and may even have been harmful …

Expand Expanding Close

Apple app tracking policies face antitrust action in France, as well as Germany

Apple app tracking | Apple rainbow image

Advertisers and ad-funded platforms like Facebook have been vocal in their objections to Apple’s app tracking policies, and the Cupertino company now faces antitrust investigations into the issue in two European countries.

A new report says that the French Competition Authority has found evidence of anticompetitive behavior by Apple in regard to app tracking, closely following a similar finding in Germany

Expand Expanding Close

German antitrust regulator declares Apple a target for stricter controls

German antitrust regulator declares Apple a target | Archery target

Not long after Apple successfully blocked a UK antitrust action against the company, a German antitrust regulator has declared that the iPhone maker is a legitimate target for special measures designed to prevent abuse of market dominance.

The regulator found that Apple was a company “of paramount significance for competition across markets,” which means that it can be subjected to stricter controls on anticompetitive behavior …

Expand Expanding Close

Apple wins UK appeal to dismiss Safari antitrust probe because of a government mess up

Apple wins UK Safari appeal due to gov mess up

Going back to 2020, UK regulators started looking into possible antitrust issues regarding Apple’s Safari browser on iPhone and iPad as well as its restriction of mobile gaming on its browser. Now Apple has won an appeal that revokes the UK’s ability to continue its probe into the matter due to a government goof.

Expand Expanding Close

Apple/Spotify battle could be resolved in Europe with Epic-style compromise [U]

Apple Spotify battle | Spotify app on iPhone

Update: Apple comment added at end

Some four years after the Apple/Spotify battle began back in 2019, we may have the first indication of how the European Union will resolve the antitrust dispute.

Reading between the lines of a brief report today, it appears that the European Commission may be heading toward a compromise ruling, which would mirror that made in the Apple vs. Epic Games case in the US …

Expand Expanding Close