Apple Fined €5 Million for Ninth Time in the Netherlands Over Third-Party In-App Payment Systems

[Contact_Feanor]

Seeing Apple's response here gives me a pretty good idea as to how they will likely respond to the side loading lawsuit with the EU.

Attempt to drag out the case in court for as long as possible, while buying time to work out a solution which does the bare minimum to allow side loading, while also making it as inconvenient for all parties involved, to the point where it becomes unfeasible for all but the most hardcore of users.

For example, I imagine Apple might decide that sideloading apps may void your AppleCare warranty one day, or maybe not be eligible for certain key iOS features like iCloud.

I guess the question is not so much about whether Apple will allow sideloading, but in what shape and form?

I'd expect them to allow sideloading, but only for notarized apps, app notarization just happens to run the same checks for malware, privacy, etc. as the App Store uploading process does. You use unknown API's? Sorry, you can't get notarized. You use third-parties to process user data? Sorry, your app can't get notarized. i.e. sideloading is allowed, but it gives no competitive difference over staying in the app store (except for things like buying credits or accounts) and your app seems less trustworthy and gets more prone to being pirated. A bit like how android does it (only, android doesn't do the notarization part, just the "this sideloading looks fishy" part).

 

[Danfango]

If the case is one of moral and what you mention is a matter of fact maybe Apple should ban the digital services you have in mind from the App Store instead of acting like the pimp of pimps spending the king pimp money on fines.

I’m just following your extreme prejudice narrative.

I personally believe that this narrative is crazy talk.

My only problem with the morality is with respect to the payment handling.

Misrepresenting the case is another issue I have. The regulator is making this into a payment freedom initiative when it's actually a money grab.

 

[frifra]

Tenth time's the charm

 

[laptech]

It's been very clear from the start what Apple is doing. They say they have complied with the courts instructions which they have from a legal stand point BUT they have failed to follow the 'spirt of the law' because they have made the process cumbersome and awkward for developers and this is where the ACM have stepped in saying that Apple has not been compling with the courts instructions.

Apple will wait until all the regulatory steps have been completed and they are once again taken back to court for failing to comply fully with the courts instructions where Apple will then go on the defensive and outline the specifics of where they have complied with the courts original instructions and that the ACM is operating outside those instructions to force Apple into doing more than they are legally required to do.

Apple will say they complied with the courts original instructions, the ACM will claim that Apple whilst claiming that have complied with the courts original instructions, they intentionally made the process more cumbersome and awkward for app developers but Apple will return with that the court did not specify the specifics on how it's achieved, just that the courts instructions are achieved which Apple will argue that they have done.

If it goes to court again I could see Apple winning this.

 

[huge_apple_fangirl]

Margrethe Vestager takes careful notes while Apple ignores a major European regulatory body. This is a textbook definition of winning a battle at the expense of the war.

Vestager has a long history of putting extreme fines on US tech companies and then losing in court in the end (eg Apple Ireland) so let’s not get ahead of ourselves here. Apple is clearly planning on appealing this fine, and believes they can win, therefore they don’t want to give in on even the tiniest thing here because it could set a precedent and compromise their position long term. Even if what they’re doing now is a bad look.

With DMA it’s a moot point though. It’s a trash bill, but it’s passing, and Apple will almost certainly be forced to make changes to IAP and the App Store. What exactly those changes end up being, and what ends up being inadvertently affected by it, are not yet clear. But Apple is not going to like it.

 

[BaldiMac]

Being that this case was initiated by the Match group, here is what the Mozilla Foundation has uncovered about their pricing practices.

https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/new-research-tinders-opaque-unfair-pricing-algorithm-can-charge-users-up-to-five-times-more-for-same-service/

Tinder pricing scandal: Dutch regulator should also investigate Apple antitrust foe Match Group if 'C' in 'ACM' truly stands for Dutch 'Consumers', not American 'Companies'

Who is hurting consumers more: a dating-app maker that clandestinely charges some of its users up to five times more for the same service...

www.fosspatents.com

Tinder Plus users around the world must engage with an opaque and unfair personalized pricing algorithm, according to new research by Mozilla and Consumers International.

The research — which spanned five continents — reveals that within a single country, consumers can be quoted up to 31 unique price points for a Tinder Plus subscription. Further, some people are charged up to five times more for the exact same service: In the Netherlands, prices ranged from $4.45 to $25.95. In the U.S., they ranged from $4.99 to $26.99.

Consumers International and Mozilla also determined that Tinder’s personalized pricing algorithm can charge older users more money. On average across the six countries investigated, 30-49 year-olds were charged 65.3% more than 18-29 year-olds. This is occurring even after Tinder faced a $24 million lawsuit for unfair pricing based on age in California.


The "Coalition for App Fairness" isn't trying to help the little guy here. They're using lobbying and lawsuits to gain more power to screw the consumers.

 

[Powerbooky]

It doesn't necessarily means the payment method would be available worldwide. The devs could add a region check via GPS, IP, phone linked to the account, etc... to make this payment mode show up or not.

Location check? The user then has to allow the location data to the app to make it function, which is in itself a violation: forcing location data from a user to make the app function. The only option would be checking rough location by checking which bank is handling the payment.

Best option for Apple: dump dating apps from any app store entirely. Just let them use ordinary webservers again. Simpler.

 

[iPhoneFan5349]

That’s not how this works. It can be locally activated code based on geolocation or based on nationality of your credit card

Too much of a hassle and it would be harder to identify which apps work like this and which don’t.

Apple is right on this one, they asked for developers to be able to use an alternate payment system, they got it.

Those fines will be reversed.

 

[Danfango]

Being that this case was initiated by the Match group, here is what the Mozilla Foundation has uncovered about their pricing practices.

https://foundation.mozilla.org/en/blog/new-research-tinders-opaque-unfair-pricing-algorithm-can-charge-users-up-to-five-times-more-for-same-service/

Tinder pricing scandal: Dutch regulator should also investigate Apple antitrust foe Match Group if 'C' in 'ACM' truly stands for Dutch 'Consumers', not American 'Companies'

Who is hurting consumers more: a dating-app maker that clandestinely charges some of its users up to five times more for the same service...

www.fosspatents.com

Tinder Plus users around the world must engage with an opaque and unfair personalized pricing algorithm, according to new research by Mozilla and Consumers International.

The research — which spanned five continents — reveals that within a single country, consumers can be quoted up to 31 unique price points for a Tinder Plus subscription. Further, some people are charged up to five times more for the exact same service: In the Netherlands, prices ranged from $4.45 to $25.95. In the U.S., they ranged from $4.99 to $26.99.

Consumers International and Mozilla also determined that Tinder’s personalized pricing algorithm can charge older users more money. On average across the six countries investigated, 30-49 year-olds were charged 65.3% more than 18-29 year-olds. This is occurring even after Tinder faced a $24 million lawsuit for unfair pricing based on age in California.


The "Coalition for App Fairness" isn't trying to help the little guy here. They're using lobbying and lawsuits to gain more power to screw the consumers.

Also the FTC thing:

FTC Sues Owner of Online Dating Service Match.com for Using Fake Love Interest Ads To Trick Consumers into Paying for a Match.com Subscription

The Federal Trade Commission sued online dating service Match Group, Inc.

www.ftc.gov

 

[MysticCow]

Well, I see my solution of Apple simply ASKING for a step-by-step instruction on how to pull this off from that "regulatory body" fell on deaf ears again...

 

[WiseAJ]

Apple needs to leave the EU and then let these bozo's get swarmed by citizens complaining that they can no longer update their iPhones or download/use apps due to government incompetence.

 

[hans1972]

That and also the fact that you can go to any store, physical or digital, including stores that sell used products, and buy a physical copy of the game.

But don't Microsoft and Sony get a commission even from physical sales?

 

[jdavid_rp]

Location check? The user then has to allow the location data to the app to make it function, which is in itself a violation: forcing location data from a user to make the app function. The only option would be checking rough location by checking which bank is handling the payment.

Best option for Apple: dump dating apps from any app store entirely. Just let them use ordinary webservers again. Simpler.

It's not really a violation of anything. If you disable your location for Tinder it will stop showing you profiles because obviously the app needs to know where you are.

Here it would be the same, if the app works like tinder users will have their location on already and if its not the case, tell them to enable it to be able to make purchases.

 

[Mausse]

The maximum fine is 50 million so they are almost there..

 

[BaldiMac]

It's not really a violation of anything. If you disable your location for Tinder it will stop showing you profiles because obviously the app needs to know where you are.

Here it would be the same, if the app works like tinder users will have their location on already and if its not the case, tell them to enable it to be able to make purchases.

The app should not need location services enabled to "know where you are" in order to function. It should default to asking where you'd like to search if you choose not to enable location services.

 

[laptech]

Unless Apple gets a favourable outcome, Apple will just appeal and keep on appealing to tie it up in court because they know an injuction cannot be used against them because to do so would mean that the app cannot be used until the court case is finished which would heavily impact the app developers more so than Apple. It is how companies play the legal system because a company can operate the same during the appeal process, something which Apple has taken full advantage of over the years.

Apple only go full on with their lawyers to get something resloved quickly if they are given an injuction telling them to stop what they are doing whilst the appeal process is going on.

 

[ksec]

Apple needs to leave the EU and then let these bozo's get swarmed by citizens complaining that they can no longer update their iPhones or download/use apps due to government incompetence.

You are late.

 

[ksec]

Why oh why, Apple?

European DMA (Digital Market Act) is in its final stage and will force Apple to allow side loading and different payment methods. The fines for violating this will be tens of billions of dollars.

So why exactly is Apple still blocking the Netherlands when the fight will soon be over???

You are thinking Apple will comply once EU has finished DMA. But the Macrumors comments has a solution. From a few post above.

Apple needs to leave the EU and then let these bozo's get swarmed by citizens complaining that they can no longer update their iPhones or download/use apps due to government incompetence.

 

[BaldiMac]

Unless Apple gets a favourable outcome, Apple will just appeal and keep on appealing to tie it up in court because they know an injuction cannot be used against them because to do so would mean that the app cannot be used until the court case is finished which would heavily impact the app developers more so than Apple. It is how companies play the legal system because a company can operate the same during the appeal process, something which Apple has taken full advantage of over the years.

In which other cases have Apple "taken full advantage of" this strategy "over the years"?

 

[AndiG]

You are thinking Apple will comply once EU has finished DMA. But the Macrumors comments has a solution. From a few post above.

Everything Tim cares about is money. And the EU is looooooooooots of money - and Apple already obeys China and Russian government - so this is nonsense. Of course Apple will - like already Microsoft and Google did in different cases.

 

[I7guy]

Everything Tim cares about is money.

And shouldn’t this be an important item for a mass consumer for profit product oriented company?

And the EU is looooooooooots of money - and Apple already obeys China and Russian government - so this is nonsense.

Of course apple follows local laws- there is no dispute on that.

Of course Apple will - like already Microsoft and Google did in different cases.

You are thinking Apple will comply once EU has finished DMA. But the Macrumors comments has a solution. From a few post above.

Yes, that is why we collectively call people who give professional advice arm-chair ceos, arm-chair lawyers etc

 

[aidler]

I think regulators need to impose more substantial fines and should no longer listen to the rediculous claims of Apple. Something like up to 30% of Apples revenue would be appropriate.

 

[Asbow]

That and also the fact that you can go to any store, physical or digital, including stores that sell used products, and buy a physical copy of the game.

Not on the digital only one. But that might be a way around it. You use the App Store as the download source.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Did you read the quoted article, in my post?

The choice is available. ACM is pointing blame at Apple saying they’re forcing customers to choose. What’s backwards is customers still don’t get to choose do they? It’s set by the developers based on the law set in Netherlands.

That makes sense. I’m saying ACM got what they wanted yet pointing fingers cause it’s not exactly what they expected.

I did, but i have also read the ACM paper.
This is about the developers and apples anti competitive behavior, not the consumers.

And they where told to stop using anti competitive practices and allow developers to use third party solutions next to apples solution.

ACM orders Apple to put an end to the violation established by ACM. Apple must adjust its conditions in such a way that, with regard to their dating apps that they offer in the Dutch App Store, dating-app providers are able to choose themselves what market participant they want to process the payments for digital content and services sold within the app. [suspended], and, in addition, they must have the ability to refer within the app to other payment systems outside the app

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I can totally see the AppleCare one coming. Voiding AppleCare warranty wouldn't entirely be unjustified as the malware cases that will result from sideloading would lead to extra cost for Apple or for non-sideloading customers if Apple ups the price of AppleCare. I can also imagine Apple will limit Wallet and Apple Pay usage for sideloaders.

I can already say that apple will not be legally able to do this. They would have to explicitly prove that side loading an app is connected to any damages on that device