Apple Hit With €500M Fine as EU Enforces Digital Markets Act

[Xand&Roby]

Every time a company like Apple, Meta and others complains is good for humanity: what hurts them makes humanity better.

Certainly not the owners of their shareholding, who abound here, but this is their problem.

 

[0049190]

Honestly, so much of this comes down to the realization that some people really love corporate power.

I suspect it's because it's a constant tension of said corporate power putting food on your own table vs all the insidious ways corporate power erodes your experience, rights, value, etc, as an individual.

It's a complicated mess to untangle how and why folks feel how they feel.

Americans have been brainwashed into thinking corporate greed is good. Maybe it’s an anti-government thing or because so many of them are also shareholders.

It’s like when they complain about state medical provision calling it socialist but don’t complain when their drug prices are the highest in the world or don’t complain because millions die every year from preventable conditions because they can’t afford private medical insurance.

 

[BaldiMac]

Because there's been more and more uproar and attention on their abuse of power. I don't just mean by governments, but in the developer communities. This has been a topic of growing irritation for years and years, surely you know that.

You can't possibly think Apple has made rules less restrictive by choice.

Please tell you me you don't believe that.

Of course I don't. That's how it's supposed to work. Instead of bringing up a strawman, how about you respond to my question? How has Apple become "increasingly abusive" when we both agree that their policies have become less restrictive and the value they provide developers is increasing over time?

 

[turbineseaplane]

Americans have been brainwashed into thinking corporate greed is good. Maybe it’s an anti-government thing or because so many of them are also shareholders.

It’s like when they complain about state medical provision calling it socialist but don’t complain when their drug prices are the highest in the world or don’t complain because millions die every year from preventable conditions because they can’t afford private medical insurance.

A lot of extends to what we now deal with in MAGA folks

If something doesn't impact them, they don't care.

Half of America lacks empathy and so much is downstream from that.

 

[subjonas]

The European Commission has fined Apple 500 million euros ($570 million) and Meta 200 million euros ($230 million) for violating the Digital Markets Act (DMA), in the first penalties ever issued under the new EU tech regulation.

How is this the first? Hasn’t the EU issued fines to Apple several times in the past couple years under DMA, including for this very issue? Have they only been warnings until now or something?

 

[turbineseaplane]

How has Apple become "increasingly abusive" when we both agree that their policies have become less restrictive and the value they provide developers is increasing over time?

I'd probably position it differently than I originally stated.

"Increasing frustration" is what I would call it, as Apple continues to slow roll and maliciously comply and fight every little nook and cranny tooth and nail.

They are having to be dragged -- kicking and screaming -- into doing better things.
(That's a viewpoint supported by loads of developers not just my own)

Does that better articulate how I feel about it?

That's how it's supposed to work

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one overall.
👍

 

[MLVC]

The EU took profits Apple booked in America, and gave it to Irish taxpayers against the desires of Ireland's government (that the people of Ireland voted for) and EU law that member countries get to design their own tax policy.

I'll repeat this as you apparently ignore my previous comment, as well, guess you don't like what it says:

This isn't entirely accurate. While Apple did pay $38B to the US Treasury in 2018, that was specifically for repatriation of overseas profits under the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act - a separate issue from the EU case.

The European Commission ruled that Ireland provided illegal tax advantages to Apple (violating EU state aid rules), not that they were taxing non-Irish sales. The core issue was that Apple's Irish tax structure allowed billions in profits to go essentially untaxed anywhere.

Ireland initially resisted collecting these taxes because their favorable arrangements helped attract multinational businesses, not because they weren't legally entitled to them under EU law.

The fundamental question isn't about double taxation but whether Apple's Irish structure artificially shifted profits to avoid taxation. The Irish Supreme Court ultimately upheld the EC's ruling.

This is less about the EU "taking money from American taxpayers" and more about closing a specific tax arrangement that the EC determined violated EU competition law.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

I agree Trump is not doing enough. May be he wanted a simpler quick strategy, instead of coming up with detailed laws that will take years to come.

My point is, EU is making specific laws that apply to no one other than American companies. But they say it’s applies to all.
If that’s what you want; then we will do it too. Make very specific laws. If a luxuary company is doing more than 5 billion in sales, then these laws apply. There. Are you happy?

Humor me, proof me wrong, name one law that applies to no one other than American companies? Just one. If you can, and link to it, I'll happily admit I'm wrong.

I've read the DMA multiple times, and parts of it in two languages just to make sure I wasn't missing something in how it was being read. I'm well aware of what is and isn't in it.

If you can't get your head around the concept that it could have been written to exclude European companies without coming out and saying "does not apply to companies based in the EU" I don't know what to tell you.

Great, in that case it wouldn't be that hard to specifically quote a paragraph that literally excludes european tech companies? Or can we agree that you meant all along that if you read inbetween the lines one could choose to interpret it in such a way, despite what it actually say in civil law (which is codified) wording?

 

[Macaholic868]

Go get them EU! None of the fear mongering about the dangers of alternative app stores has come to pass. It’s time to fine them into full compliance with the law. It’ll benefit the world if the EU successfully demonstrates their arguments against other app stores and their excuses for living up to the law of the land in the EU have been mostly garbage. Flawed thinking at a minimum but we all know it’s about the 💵 💰 💴.

 

[surferfb]

Americans have been brainwashed into thinking corporate greed is good. Maybe it’s an anti-government thing or because so many of them are also shareholders.

As someone who was born and lives in in the US, I'd argue that it's not that we think corporate greed is good, but that a lot of us have a high barrier for government intervention in the free market. I personally think that intervention ought to be reserved for life/health/safety types of things and "Apple doesn't allow third party app stores when it's largest competitor does" doesn't rise to the level that requires government intervention, and the EU's default "regulate first" approach actually significantly harms its competitiveness. That's not to say the US' system is flawless (it absolutely isn't) but I'd argue in the whole, it is better for society than the EU's.

 

[0049190]

I am not surprised. An easy target for lots of money. Politicians don't realize that fines are paid by customers and users, not by the company. Fining a company is not really hurting the people that make the corporate decisions. Which is where the financial punishment should reside.

There would no fines if Apple complied with the law. Would you expect to break the law and face no consequences?

 

[0049190]

As someone who was born and lives in in the US, I'd argue that it's not that we think corporate greed is good, but that a lot of us have a high barrier for government intervention in the free market. I personally think that intervention ought to be reserved for life/health/safety types of things and "Apple doesn't allow third party app stores when it's largest competitor does" doesn't rise to the level that requires government intervention, and the EU's default "regulate first" approach actually significantly harms its competitiveness. That's not to say the US' system is flawless (it absolutely isn't) but I'd argue in the whole, it is better for society than the EU's.

It’s interesting to read your viewpoint as an American. I guess it’s subjective as which is better. It all depends on your lived experience. I suspect most Europeans prefer their system and most Americans prefer their system. In the end you get what you vote for.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It’s interesting to read your viewpoint as an American. I guess it’s subjective as which is better. It all depends on your lived experience. I suspect most Europeans prefer their system and most Americans prefer their system. In the end you get what you vote for.

The problem in America is a combination of Citizens United and the lack of strong anti-trust enforcement.

If those two things were rectified (not at all likely now), corporations are largely held in check and very much a net benefit overall.

Corporate power is now off the rails, and it's not at all an accident.

 

[Jeo_cz]

As someone who was born and lives in in the US, I'd argue that it's not that we think corporate greed is good, but that a lot of us have a high barrier for government intervention in the free market. I personally think that intervention ought to be reserved for life/health/safety types of things and "Apple doesn't allow third party app stores when it's largest competitor does" doesn't rise to the level that requires government intervention, and the EU's default "regulate first" approach actually significantly harms its competitiveness. That's not to say the US' system is flawless (it absolutely isn't) but I'd argue in the whole, it is better for society than the EU's.

I can actually see your point and partially agree. The problem is that companies like Apple, Google, Meta etc. are too big and powerful to be let on their own without any control. Otherwise, there will be no competition in the future. No other company will have chance to fight agains their absolute power to destroy anybody.

 

[Xand&Roby]

As someone who was born and lives in in the US, I'd argue that it's not that we think corporate greed is good, but that a lot of us have a high barrier for government intervention in the free market. I personally think that intervention ought to be reserved for life/health/safety types of things and "Apple doesn't allow third party app stores when it's largest competitor does" doesn't rise to the level that requires government intervention, and the EU's default "regulate first" approach actually significantly harms its competitiveness. That's not to say the US' system is flawless (it absolutely isn't) but I'd argue in the whole, it is better for society than the EU's.

Who cares what's better for EU society in U.S.?

 

[surferfb]

Who cares what's better for EU society in U.S.?

Well, discounting the fact that I used to live in an EU country that I still have significant ties to, my brother is a dual citizen of the US and a EU country, and I may end up retiring to the EU, I think a strong European competitor to American and Chinese tech companies would be a good thing for everyone.

And while I know many of you disagree with me on this, it's very clear to me that the law was intentionally written to avoid targeting European companies (which, to be clear, is absolutely the EU's right to do - but then save me the sanctimonious "we just care about fair competition" BS).

Again this is not an Apple thing. I really think the DMA is a huge overreach. I really dislike Meta and would love to see them get taken down a peg, and I still think the ruling against them is even more absurd than the one against Apple.

 

[raythompsontn]

Who cares what's better for EU society in U.S.?

Apparently a lot of people posting here.

 

[Xand&Roby]

Apparently a lot of people posting here.

Apparently, but it's seems to me most of them are more interested with Apple stocks.

 

[BaldiMac]

The problem in America is a combination if Citizens United and the lack of strong anti-trust enforcement.

If those two things were rectified (not all likely now), corporations were largely held in check and very much a net benefit overall.

Corporate power is now off the rails, and it's not at all an accident.

Absolutely. I'd throw in gerrymandering and other anti-democratic systems such as the electoral college and the filibuster. Why doesn't Congress get anything done? Because 6% of the country (Just over half the population of the 21 smallest states) can block most legislation.

 

[surferfb]

Great, in that case it wouldn't be that hard to specifically quote a paragraph that literally excludes european tech companies? Or can we agree that you meant all along that if you read inbetween the lines one could choose to interpret it in such a way, despite what it actually say in civil law (which is codified) wording?

I've been told repeatedly in threads about the DMA that in Europe you need to consider the spirit of the law, not the letter of the law. (Which is why Meta can be fined for offering a "free and track" or a "pay and not track" despite the law just saying consumers need an option to not be tracked). So I will concede that looking at the letter of the law there is nothing that excludes European companies from being impacted by the DMA.

But the spirit of the law certainly looks like it was designed with a laser scalpel to avoid hitting major EU tech companies. And again, it's not just me saying it. Just look at how the law was created.

The European Parliament’s Internal Market and Consumer Protection Committee (IMCO) report on the DMA, explicitly advocated for changing the DMA’s thresholds to keep U.S. firms within scope while exempting most EU competitors - which led to amendments to the DMA. The report's author, Andreas Schwab, a German MEP, suggested the DMA should "unquestionably" target only the five biggest U.S. firms.

Or read this article, which helpfully points out (emphasis mine)

Finally, although the EU has publicly committed to boosting innovation and reducing regulatory red tape, the DMA is consistently treated as an exception. For example, former Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghi’s landmark report emphasized the need to reduce bureaucracy to strengthen European competitiveness, but nonetheless praised the DMA. Likewise, in its Competitiveness Compass strategy, the Commission prioritizes cutting excessive regulations to foster innovation. But while the Commission has already announced its intention to withdraw certain digital regulations, such as the AI Liability Act, the DMA remains untouched. As such, if the EU is genuinely committed to reducing regulatory burdens, why is it doubling down on the DMA while relaxing other rules? The answer seems clear: Other regulations would place burdens on many European companies, but the DMA primarily targets American firms.

Or a Senior Adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies who stated:

As proposed, the DMA will amend the EU competition law system to the benefit of European incumbents and subsidized Chinese competitors.

So sure, you win - the law doesn't have a "doesn't apply to EU companies" line. But it's clear the law was written to make sure that language wasn't needed.

 

[Xand&Roby]

Well, discounting the fact that I used to live in an EU country that I still have significant ties to, my brother is a dual citizen of the US and a EU country, and I may end up retiring to the EU, I think a strong European competitor to American and Chinese tech companies would be a good thing for everyone.

And while I know many of you disagree with me on this, it's very clear to me that the law was intentionally written to avoid targeting European companies (which, to be clear, is absolutely the EU's right to do - but then save me the sanctimonious "we just care about fair competition" BS).

Again this is not an Apple thing. I really think the DMA is a huge overreach. I really dislike Meta and would love to see them get taken down a peg, and I still think the ruling against them is even more absurd than the one against Apple.

I think you have a hypocritical concept of free markets in the U.S., and you are aware of it, but you like to hypocritically pass for those on the right side.
In my part of the world, a wise president who fought the fascists directly expressed a simple concept that will sound revolutionary to those in your area: to a brigand you answer with a brigand and a half.
Neither Apple nor Meta need lawyers among consumers: they already pay hordes of law firms.

 

[SBlue1]

Guess that means more taxes to the EU customers on top of the tariffs.

What do you mean? The EU has no tariffs on China for electronics.

 

[jakey rolling]

I do - I should have said ERP Platforms, not applications. But I'd argue ERP platforms like SAP create far more lock-in for business users than the App Store does.

You probably should have stuck to things you actually know and not say anything about ERP systems. It would be far more accurate to compare the vendor lock-in of a Boeing 737 Max to a Tier-1 ERP system than whatever line of reasoning you were just attempting right there.

 

[delsoul]

Now we know how the EU keeps funding all of its freeloader programs, by shaking down businesses and corporations it doesn’t like. True shame that there’s nobody that can fine the EU in return.

 

[Xand&Roby]

Now we know how the EU keeps funding all of its freeloader programs, by shaking down businesses and corporations it doesn’t like. True shame that there’s nobody that can fine the EU in return.

It is always possible to stop selling in the EU.