Apple faces legal protest from Meta, Microsoft, X and Match
Four tech companies object to Apple’s new app store policies related to payment for services
MMeta Platforms , Microsoft , X, Spotify and Match Group filed legal petitions protesting Apple ’s app store policies, objecting to how the tech giant has complied with a federal court ruling that ordered Apple to allow alternative payment methods.
The five companies, which have some of the most popular apps on the app store, join “Fortnite”-maker Epic Games in protesting Apple’s plan to charge a commission for payments made outside the app store.
The briefing underscores the extent to which Apple’s rivals and other technology players intend to continue fighting to force the iPhone maker to loosen its tight controls over third-party software. Apple charges up to a 30% commission for purchases in the app store for services or one-time fees, a rate that developers say is too high. Apple has defended its right to charge the fees and said it invests in privacy and security measures that protect users.
Apple in January announced plans to allow developers to process purchases outside of its app store, but the company drew sharp criticism from software-makers when it said it would charge a 27% commission in such cases. The new policy came after the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear appeals of a 2021 ruling that ordered Apple to allow software makers to direct users to alternate ways to pay for services or apps outside the app store. Some of those alternatives are cheaper for consumers.
Earlier this month, Epic filed a petition in the Northern California District Court asking U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers , who oversaw the 2021 case, to enforce her decision. Rogers has previously said she would be watching how Apple complies with her order and could decide at some point to amend her ruling.
In a joint amicus briefing filed Wednesday, Meta, Microsoft, X and Match Group argue that Apple’s response essentially leaves in place the existing rule governing how software makers steer users to alternative options. It also says that it places new restrictions on app developers.
“The Apple Plan comports with neither the letter nor the spirit of this Court’s mandate,” the filing says. In a separate filing, Spotify wrote that “Apple’s conduct shows that it has no intention of complying with this Court’s directive.”
The ruling said Apple couldn’t prevent developers from including buttons or links to alternate payment methods.
The amicus briefing says Apple only allows them one option for an external link that is still tightly controlled. “The provision of even the most basic information about alternatives remains forbidden under the Apple plan,” the briefing says.
If a developer wanted to say, for example, that a customer “can buy this feature at a 30% discount on our website,” it cannot do so, the briefing says.
In the joint filing, Meta argues that it should be able to steer users to alternate methods to pay for “boosted posts,” a kind of advertising in which users on Facebook or Instagram can amplify the reach of their content. Apple began requiring a 30% commission for such posts purchased on Apple devices in 2022, and Meta has also sought to steer users to alternate options.
Microsoft said it is limited in its ability to offer subscriptions and discounts under Apple’s new policy. X called Apple’s 27% commission a “tax” on purchases and said it eliminates any incentive to include an external link.
Match Group said in the filing that Apple’s plan will impact thousands of developers and millions of users and will impede the court’s effort to improve price competition in digital transactions.
Apple has said it fully complied with the court order and has implemented a system that gives developers the option to inform customers— inside and outside of apps—of alternate purchasing methods. The initial ruling suggests that Apple allow external payment options but could still take steps to protect users. Apple has said that its new requirements related to external links are necessary to protect user privacy and security.
Legal experts have suggested that Apple’s changes appear to satisfy the requirements set out in the order, although Rogers could find that they don’t comport with the intent of her ruling.
Apple is facing an investigation by the Justice Department, which could soon file an antitrust complaint about its business practices. The probe began in 2019 and deals in part with Apple’s policies governing mobile third-party software on its devices, which has been the focus of criticism, The Wall Street Journal has reported.
Apple has drawn similar criticism from developers regarding its compliance with a new European law, called the Digital Markets Act. The law is intended to force Apple and other tech platforms European officials deem gatekeepers to open their closed software ecosystems.
Apple’s compliance plan it rolled out this month was a complex web of new fees and restrictions for any app developer opting to choose the new policy. Most developers criticized Apple’s European policies as not practical.