Apple Slaps Warnings on Apps Using External Purchases in the EU [Updated]

[AppliedMicro]

I’ll bet Apple have to dole out hundreds of thousands of dollars each month on refunds to parents whose kids have overspent on IAP because they were unwillingly ignorant of the results. Apple do this because it’s costing them a competitive pittance and it want the goodwill.

…and, even more than that, the money.💸🤑

I have no doubt that for every hundred thousand of refund, they’re raking in a million (or several) from kids with parents that don’t notice or go through the bother to request a refund.

If said child has done the same via a 3rd party link

…they’d have to enter credit/debit card details.
Or another non-Apple payment method.

Keep in mind thought that Apple does allow other payment methods in apps.
Doesn’t even require linking out (see for example the Uber app).

They have no issues to accept alternative payments in apps WITHOUT SCARY WARNING SIGNS when it suits them.
Neither do they have an issue with offering in-app subscription for $10 a week - or more. Targeted at teenagers.

It’s not about security or lawsuits.
It’s just about their ability to print money.

Please explain to me this as I'm confused.

(…).
The Judge went mad at them for this

Don’t confuse EU warnings with US court orders.

 

[surferfb]

Please explain to me this as I'm confused.

Literally Apple has gotten into VERY deep trouble for deliberately selecting to creating scary screens and warnings to customers.
The Judge went mad at them for this and internal documents were shown and proved that Apple deliberately went out of their way to create scary warnings, and went back and forth to make them as scary as possible.

Now Apple, after this have decided to change this notification with a LARGE RED exclamation mark in an attempt to make this option even more scary that it was before.

Does this not fly directly in the face of what they were told not to do.
It's like they are deliberately trying to get into trouble again.

Are folks at Apple just plain stupid?
Do they not understand what they were told not to do?
Are they deliberately trying to get themselves into even more trouble?

I'm baffled.
It's like a Police Officer given you are warning to not do something, and immediately afterwards you go and do it again.

It's genuinely bizarre.

This warning has been in place long before to the judge’s ruling, and is only in place in the EU. The judge’s ruling only applies in the US, not the EU.

This would have changed in the EU to be less “scary” had the EU not told Apple to hold off on implementing the change back in August, either because the EU is best case, incompetent, or worst case intentionally creating reasons to find Apple out of compliance.

 

[AppliedMicro]

This would have changed in the EU to be less “scary” had the EU not told Apple to hold off on implementing the change back in August

...according to (only) Apple's own account - a company that hasn't shied away from even lying in courts of law about it.

The Digital Markets Act has also - from the very beginning - prohibited gatekeepers (like Apple) from "mak(ing) the exercise of those rights or choices unduly difficult, including by offering choices to the end-user in a non-neutral manner, or by subverting end users’ or business users' autonomy, decision-making ... via the ... design ... of a user interface or a part thereof."

Pretty clear, who is the bad faith actor here.

 

[surferfb]

...according to (only) Apple's own account - a company that hasn't shied away from even lying in courts of law about it.

According to correspondence shared with Politico, who asked the EU to comment, to which the response was not “That’s not true” but rather

“The Commission made it very clear whenever Apple’s proposals were at the outset falling short of effective compliance and encouraged the company to seek market feedback. Last [month's] decision only addresses the solution that Apple decided to roll out, not any other hypothetical approach that the company might have been considering.”

That actually sounds like a confirmation to me that the EU was acting in bad faith, telling them to hold off on changing it after their initial feedback and then fining Apple for not changing it, but given the EU’s history, incompetence is always a possibility.

Apple has since shared the same message to multiple other news outlets, and the EU still hasn’t said Apple is lying.

 

[AppliedMicro]

It's very simple:

If you can to comply and not get fined, design a user interface that doesn't violate the legislation.
Their current implementation is obviously not neutral (as explained by Tsai here).

Everything else is explaining away responsibility after the fact.

Last [month's] decision only addresses the solution that Apple decided to roll out, not any other hypothetical approach that the company might have been considering.”

That's what the law says:

"The gatekeeper shall ensure and demonstrate compliance with the obligations laid down in Articles 5, 6 and 7 of this Regulation. The measures implemented by the gatekeeper to ensure compliance with those Articles shall be effective in achieving the objectives of this Regulation and of the relevant obligation"

But rather than ensuring compliance in good faith, Apple are testing out how much of deliberate noncompliance they can just get away with, without being punished. Again and again. In Europe just as in the U.S.

 

[surferfb]

It's very simple:

If you can to comply and not get fined, design a user interface that doesn't violate the legislation.
Their current implementation is obviously not neutral (as explained by Tsai here).

Everything else is explaining away responsibility after the fact.

So is Apple supposed to do what the EU says or not? I thought Apple had to do what the EU wanted? So when directly told “hold off on implementing that change” they’re supposed to implement it anyway?

 

[AppliedMicro]

So when directly told “hold off on implementing that change” they’re supposed to implement it anyway?

I consider that lie and attempt to gaslight on Apple's part.

👉 What would be the legal basis for this anyway? I can't think of any.

Apple has to comply with the law (see above).
And they clearly have access the legal resources and advice to do so.


EDIT: It's akin to being in front of a judge for a violation of law, and complaining "But a cop told me not to comply with law".

👉 So did Apple let itself get "talked into" not complying with the law by the EU - without legal grounds to do so?

Yeah... no! I'm not buying it.
Now given how carefully Apple has been weighing its options and actions all the way. And how long they've had to comply. Neither would Judge Gonzalez-Rogers buy it. As she put it:

"In stark contrast to Apple’s initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option. To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath."

Lying under oath is of course a punishable offence - unlike publicly spinning things through Gruber and Politico.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

This warning has been in place long before to the judge’s ruling, and is only in place in the EU. The judge’s ruling only applies in the US, not the EU.

This would have changed in the EU to be less “scary” had the EU not told Apple to hold off on implementing the change back in August, either because the EU is best case, incompetent, or worst case intentionally creating reasons to find Apple out of compliance.

We only have Apple's word for that and they haven't exactly shown themselves to be engaging in this process in good faith.

The EU account seemed to be more along the lines of "go and seek feedback from developers and make the appropriate changes to ensure compliance. We are lawmakers, we aren't here to write the copy for you". Apple then made no changes at all.

When asked about the correspondence from Apple, the Commission said that its door will always be open, but that it is the “sole responsibility” of the gatekeepers to come up with product changes that comply with the law.“The Commission made it very clear whenever Apple’s proposals were at the outset falling short of effective compliance and encouraged the company to seek market feedback,” said Commission spokesperson Lea Zuber.“Last [month's] decision only addresses the solution that Apple decided to roll out, not any other hypothetical approach that the company might have been considering,” said Zuber.

We have seen from the Epic discovery that the approach Apple really wanted to take was the 'make it as scary as possible' one. I think they were more than happy for it to stay the way it was.

The same piece that Gruber cited from Politico seems to suggest that Meta received a much smaller fine because they pressed ahead with changes.

 

[I7guy]

I didn't say anything about legality. You're deflecting.

It (predatory pricing) absolutely is legal in many jurisdictions.

There is nothing illegal in the entirety of the US and Canada.

 

[I7guy]

...according to (only) Apple's own account - a company that hasn't shied away from even lying in courts of law about it.

The Digital Markets Act has also - from the very beginning - prohibited gatekeepers (like Apple) from "mak(ing) the exercise of those rights or choices unduly difficult, including by offering choices to the end-user in a non-neutral manner, or by subverting end users’ or business users' autonomy, decision-making ... via the ... design ... of a user interface or a part thereof."

Pretty clear, who is the bad faith actor here.

The DMA is clearly bad faith legislation tbh. As apples business is so nuanced they will never be in compliance. The DMA is a way to use Apple as a piggy bank.

 

[AppliedMicro]

There is nothing illegal in the entirety of the US and Canada.

It is - though the U.S. is clearly more monopoly-friendly than the EU.

As apples business is so nuanced they will never be in compliance. The DMA is a way to use Apple as a piggy bank.

There are other gatekeepers with similarly "nuanced" business models (e.g. Microsoft) that didn't run afoul of the DMA.
Also, from Apple's actions, they're clearly testing out the very limits of what they'll get away with.

 

[I7guy]

There are other gatekeepers with similarly "nuanced" business models (e.g. Microsoft) that didn't run afoul of the DMA.
Also, from Apple's actions, they're clearly testing out the very limits of what they'll get away with.

The DMA is slanted toward Apple. And Apple wouldn’t be testing if there were well written regulations.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

The DMA is slanted toward Apple. And Apple wouldn’t be testing if there were well written regulations.

It's slanted towards tech companies abusing their market position. Seems like the gloves fit here!

 

[AppliedMicro]

And Apple wouldn’t be testing if there were well written regulations.

What would you consider well-written?

 

[I7guy]

What would you consider well-written?

The DMA should just say what the intent is. Drop the gatekeeper nomenclature and replace with Apple Inc. and spell out the conditions of business.

 

[I7guy]

It's slanted towards tech companies abusing their market position. Seems like the gloves fit here!

Slanted toward mostly one American tech company who have not violated any laws relating to competition. I agree.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Drop the gatekeeper nomenclature and replace with Apple Inc. and spell out the conditions of business.

...and then you'd complain it's a law that unfairly discriminates against (only) Apple.

 

[I7guy]

...and then you'd complain it's a law that unfairly discriminates against (only) Apple.

What would be different than the current situation in the EU?

 

[surferfb]

I consider that lie and attempt to gaslight on Apple's part.

👉 What would be the legal basis for this anyway? I can't think of any.

Apple has to comply with the law (see above).
And they clearly have access the legal resources and advice to do so.


EDIT: It's akin to being in front of a judge for a violation of law, and complaining "But a cop told me not to comply with law".

👉 So did Apple let itself get "talked into" not complying with the law by the EU - without legal grounds to do so?

Yeah... no! I'm not buying it.
Now given how carefully Apple has been weighing its options and actions all the way. And how long they've had to comply. Neither would Judge Gonzalez-Rogers buy it. As she put it:

"In stark contrast to Apple’s initial in-court testimony, contemporaneous business documents reveal that Apple knew exactly what it was doing and at every turn chose the most anticompetitive option. To hide the truth, Vice-President of Finance, Alex Roman, outright lied under oath."

Lying under oath is of course a punishable offence - unlike publicly spinning things through Gruber and Politico.

Absolutely absurd.

If Apple had implemented it anyway and then been dinged for it, you and all the DMA defenders absolutely would have said “the EU told them not to implement it, how much more clear could they be - and they still ignored the EU. Apple is clearly operating in bad faith and deserve the fines they get!”

And you’d be right to!

The EU cannot have it both ways. Either they tell Apple what to do or they leave it to Apple to interpret the law. This “regulation by whatever we’re feeling today” is absurd and Apple is absolutely right to take the commission to court

It’s becoming more and more clear the commission is operating in bad faith and has been since the moment Vestager commissioned the incredibly biased report that led to the DMA in the first place.

 

[AppliedMicro]

If Apple had implemented it

...they'd have implemented a design that is objectively less likely to be considered (non-neutral and) violating the law.

PS: Note that, as far as I'm aware, Apple were NOT fined for the design of warning message in their App Store, as discussed on this thread.

Either they tell Apple what to do

They did tell Apple what they found wrong with it.
Almost a year ago.

 

[surferfb]

...they'd have implemented a design that is objectively less likely to be considered (non-neutral and) violating the law.

Humor me - assume for the sake of argument what Apple told Politico/Gruber/Bloomberg is true.

Do you find it at all concerning the EU would tell Apple not to implement a fix and then fine them half a billion dollars for not implementing it?

 

[AppliedMicro]

Do you find it at all concerning the EU would tell Apple not to implement a fix and then fine them half a billion dollars for not implementing it?

As far as I can see, they were not fined for this warning message (yet):
The commission did tell Apple what they found wrong with their implementation almost a year ago.

Do you find it at all concerning the EU would tell Apple not to implement a fix and then fine them half a billion dollars for not implementing it?

👉 Please provide source/proof that that (the warning label we and Gruber are talking about) is what the EU actually fined them for.

 

[surferfb]

As far as I can see, they were not fined for this warning message (yet):
The commission did tell Apple what they found wrong with their implementation almost a year ago.


👉 Please provide source/proof that that (the warning label we and Gruber are talking about) is what the EU actually fined them for.

The politico article makes it pretty clear.

According to correspondence seen by POLITICO, Apple offered last summer to drop its rules on how app developers can communicate with users, but was told by the Commission to hold off, pending feedback from developers.

By late September and following a round of consultations with Apple critics like Spotify, Match Group and Epic Games, executives at the U.S.-based firm began worrying that a lack of feedback from the Commission meant it was teeing up a potential fine and noncompliance decision.

In an October 2024 letter sent to senior officials in DG Connect and DG Competition, and seen by POLITICO, an Apple executive complained that the Commission’s case teams had “made clear” that then-Commissioner Margrethe Vestager intended to issue a decision with a “potentially significant fine.

And again, I was asking a hypothetical question. If what Gruber/Politico is true, do you find that concerning? Or should Apple disregard EC instructions if it thinks it knows better?

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Slanted toward mostly one American tech company who have not violated any laws relating to competition. I agree.

The protectionism argument is very weak. Nearly every company investigated under the DMA is also being looked at by regulators in the US.

it's almost as if they've got some sketchy business practices.

 

[AppliedMicro]

The politico article makes it pretty clear.

Quite the contrary!

"According to correspondence seen by POLITICO, Apple offered last summer to drop its rules on how app developers can communicate with users, but was told by the Commission to hold off, pending feedback from developers"

Have they "dropped" them by now? No!
Why not, when they've fined to the tune of hundreds of millions - allegedly for them?
...and continued infringement risks incurring additional, even higher fines under the DMA?

If that's what they've been fined for, why haven't they dropped them now?

Regardless of whether they were "told by the Commission to hold off":
If they've been fined for these rules (that they claim they were ready to "drop"), why are they keeping them up?

👉 The claim doesn't make any sense.