Apple will face a full trial in the UK over allegations it breached competition law by overcharging customers for apps on its App Store.
Jonathan Chadwick for The Daily Mail:
London’s Competition Appeal Tribunal has this week refused Apple’s attempt to limit a consumer claim led by Dr Rachael Kent, a lecturer in digital economy.
Dr Kent’s claim alleges that Apple breached the law by excluding competition and charging an unlawful level of commission on digital purchases in the App Store.
It argues that forcing app developers to use Apple’s payment system for in-app purchases and taking up to 30 per cent commission on those transactions is unfair and has bumped up prices for consumers.
If the trial rules against Apple, 19.6 million consumers who purchased paid apps in the App Store since October 2015 would be entitled to a share of £1.5 billion in compensation.
MacDailyNews Take: Sigh. Apple’s App Store isn’t a charity and it’s not free to operate.
How much did it cost developers to have their apps burned onto CDs, boxed, shipped, displayed on store shelves prior to Apple remaking the world for the better for umpteenth time? Apple incurs costs to store, review, organize, surface, and distribute apps to over one billion users. — MacDailyNews, June 10, 2022
Please help support MacDailyNews. Click or tap here to support our independent tech blog. Thank you!
Shop The Apple Store at Amazon.
Here we go again. App Store groundhog day…
“Sigh. Apple’s App Store isn’t a charity and it’s not free to operate.“
Total deflection. Either would iOS App Store alternatives if the were allowed.
The claim might be that the fees charged exceeded the actual costs of providing the service. It would be unlawful for physical shops to charge manufacturers to sell their products. Perhaps it is the same with digital stores.
I don’t think you are right. Every retailer and manufacturer agree on a price. Retailers can include premium prices for better product placement ie top shelf vs bottom shelf. Manufacturers can not demand that stores sell their products, but can prevent retailers from discounting
I don’t dispute that – the issue is whether fees can be charged to stock items per se, not merely to give better placement. The charging of a ‘fee’ for a particular activity, as opposed to the ‘price’ payable for a provided service, should not be more than it costs to perform. If the cost to Apple of including an application is less than it currently charges then that may be unlawful.