Developers Now Required to Share Phone Number and Address on EU App Store to Meet 'Trader' Requirement

[darkpaw]

The actual issue here is that we are talking about traders and not businesses. I think we're moving off-topic a little.

This is about whether a developer is considered a trader under the DSA. It's not about developers becoming businesses; that's different. There are national requirements for businesses, and they are dependent on where your business is located. The DSA can't tell, say, the UK, that they must have XYZ information whenever a UK business is registered, just like they can't tell a US business to have XYZ information.

The DSA requires that anyone selling apps on the App Store in the EU provide an address. In the case of indie developers they don't have a physical address other than their own personal address, and that's what we have an issue with.

Everyone seems to be telling us to register as a business because we're selling apps in the EU. No. Apple is selling our apps on their own store. Apple collects payments, handles refunds, and handles taxes in each country for us. Apple is the seller, I'm just providing a product for them to sell. And, as has already been mentioned many times before, we already provide a support url where anyone can contact us.

I can see no reason for everyone in the EU - whether they've bought my app or not - to be able to see my physical address as a trader (not a business).

 

[jlc1978]

What’s different is that if you’re not making a significant amount of money in the US, you’re not a business, it’s a hobby, and the rules are different. But based on everything I’ve read, if you offer an app for sale you’re a trader, no ands ifs or buts.

But that's isn't true for tax purposes. A hobbyist can't use deductions that a business can.

I do have a problem with making a high school kid who’s just trying to break even on the Apple Developer Fee or make something for their friends reveal their address and risk being doxxed or worse because the EU thinks it’s 1992 and they’re the same as someone operating an Imbiss in München.

Then the indie should not sell in the EU.

Edit:Typo

 

[surferfb]

Then the indie should not sell in the EU

Agree 100% Which is why this regulation is bad for users (fewer apps), developers (lost revenue), and the government (less tax revenue). As I said before - everyone loses! For literally ZERO benefit to anyone.

 

[Tech_Fan]

The actual issue here is that we are talking about traders and not businesses. I think we're moving off-topic a little.

This is about whether a developer is considered a trader under the DSA. It's not about developers becoming businesses; that's different. There are national requirements for businesses, and they are dependent on where your business is located. The DSA can't tell, say, the UK, that they must have XYZ information whenever a UK business is registered, just like they can't tell a US business to have XYZ information.

The DSA requires that anyone selling apps on the App Store in the EU provide an address. In the case of indie developers they don't have a physical address other than their own personal address, and that's what we have an issue with.

Everyone seems to be telling us to register as a business because we're selling apps in the EU. No. Apple is selling our apps on their own store. Apple collects payments, handles refunds, and handles taxes in each country for us. Apple is the seller, I'm just providing a product for them to sell. And, as has already been mentioned many times before, we already provide a support url where anyone can contact us.

I can see no reason for everyone in the EU - whether they've bought my app or not - to be able to see my physical address as a trader (not a business).

Perfectly stated! As for the Apple and the DSA, if you don’t provide your trader status by February 25, 2025, your app(s) will no longer be available ‘in Europe’.

 

[strongy]

I’m thinking one of 2 options:

• Remove the apps from EU
• Put the European Commission phone and address

number 2 isn't an option you need to provide certified documentation

 

[AppliedMicro]

Everyone seems to be telling us to register as a business because we're selling apps in the EU. No. Apple is selling our apps on their own store. Apple collects payments, handles refunds, and handles taxes in each country for us. Apple is the seller, I'm just providing a product for them to sell.

No, you're not. Apple are merely selling/charging on your behalf - at the prices you, your business, set.

You may want to reread your paid applications agreement with Apple:

"The parties acknowledge and agree that their relationship (...) is, and shall be, that of principal and agent, or principal and commissionaire (...) and that You, as principal, are, and shall be, solely responsible for any and all claims and liabilities involving or relating to, the Licensed Applications"

That is the clever thing: Charging 30% commission - without taking responsibility for what they're selling.

For literally ZERO benefit to anyone

Having contact details for a manufacturer is beneficial to consumers.
And can be used to legally act or defend any rights violated.

Buying and using products with no one accountable is not a benefit.
It's a benefit to untrustworthy traders, scammers and fraudsters.

 

[darkpaw]

No, you're not. Apple are merely selling/charging on your behalf - at the prices you, your business, set.

I'm not a business. When I signed up for a Developer account I was offered individual or business. I chose individual. There are different requirements for a business.

You may want to reread your paid applications agreement with Apple:

"The parties acknowledge and agree that their relationship (...) is, and shall be, that of principal and agent, or principal and commissionaire (...) and that You, as principal, are, and shall be, solely responsible for any and all claims and liabilities involving or relating to, the Licensed Applications"

I know I license Apple to sell my apps, and I know I'm responsible for what they do, which is why my apps do the things I say they do, and don't do nefarious things.

Having contact details for a manufacturer is beneficial to consumers.
And can be used to legally act or defend any rights violated.

I agree, but if someone has an issue with one of my apps they can contact me via the support url every app is obliged to provide. And, if someone wishes to sue me, I'm sure they could contact Apple and get my details, or they could contact me via the support url and - when they provide proof they're suing me - I would obviously hand over my details.

But, until someone needs to sue me, there is no reason for my personal address to be displayed to everyone in the EU whether they've bought my apps or not.

Also, how many individual developers of apps on the App Store have been sued? How many individual developers have written dodgy apps that have caused users a financial loss of some sort?

Buying and using products with no one accountable is not a benefit.

I am accountable! You seem to think the App Store is a wild west of scam apps and dodgy developers. It isn't, and you should probably not tar everyone with that brush or you may be sued for defamation/libel.

It's a benefit to untrustworthy traders, scammers and fraudsters.

I'm not untrustworthy. I'm not a scammer. I'm not a fraudster.

I see you finally recognise traders, though 😁

 

[jlc1978]

That is the clever thing: Charging 30% commission - without taking responsibility for what they're selling.

Just like brick and mortar companies.

 

[AppliedMicro]

I'm not a business

When you charge for your applications, you are.

When I signed up for a Developer account I was offered individual or business. I chose individual

You're a "sole trader" business then (or the equivalent of whatever the applicable jurisdiction calls it).
Individual can "trade" or operate businesses.

I agree, but if someone has an issue with one of my apps they can contact me via the support url every app is obliged to provide

...and the E.U. merely standardises the ways you can be contacted - rather than leaving it up to businesses/traders or for-profit platform operators themselves.

until someone needs to sue me, there is no reason for my personal address to be displayed to everyone in the EU

Maybe someone does.

You seem to think the App Store is a wild west of scam apps and dodgy developers

No, not really - though there are bad apples, of course.
But what the App Store is or what policies Apple has in operating it, is largely irrelevant.

👉 This law isn't only about Apple, nor is it only about software/apps - or application stores/platforms.

how many individual developers of apps on the App Store have been sued? How many individual developers have written dodgy apps that have caused users a financial loss of some sort?

Some have.
Some have copied legitimate apps by other developers.

I'm not untrustworthy. I'm not a scammer. I'm not a fraudster.

The fact that you seem to be

• selling apps on Apple's App Store to customers around the world for money
• while denying to be a business

raises at least some concern about the trustworthiness. A business, small as they may be, shouldn't have an issue admitting that they are (running) a business. And EU law assumes that trustworthy businesses can provide an address somewhere, and certain means to contact them (if they want to do business in the EU).

 

[darkpaw]

When you charge for your applications, you are.

No I'm not. I live in the UK. I'm not required under UK law to register a business to sell apps on the App Store. The change here is that EU's DSA says I may be a trader: trader != business.

I posted this point ages ago, and people are either wilfully ignorant of it or wilfully ignoring it. There is nothing in the DSA that says I must become a business.

You're a "sole trader" business then (or the equivalent of whatever the applicable jurisdiction calls it).
Individual can "trade" or operate businesses.

Again, I'm not even a sole trader under UK law.

...and the E.U. merely standardises the ways you can be contacted - rather than leaving it up to businesses/traders or for-profit platform operators themselves.

You may see that as standardising the means of contact but the actual effect is that individual developers - who the EU now see as traders - have to provide their personal address to everyone in the EU. We don't want to be doxxed, which is why there is an uproar against this. All this will do is remove apps from the EU or cause developers to pay for extra phone lines and virtual addresses etc. No one wins from this, except maybe scammers and bots who will hoover up our personal details.

Some have.
Some have copied legitimate apps by other developers.

And they have been rightly found out. But no one needed to see the copycat developer's address on the App Store to get this to happen.

The fact that you seem to be

• selling apps on Apple's App Store to customers around the world for money
• while denying to be a business

raises at least some concern about the trustworthiness.

That's quite a bold statement. You're suggesting I'm untrustworthy because I don't want to give 400mn people access to my personal address?

I am not a business. JFC.

The DSA does not require me to become a registered business in the UK, so I am not a business. The DSA does not call me a business. You really need to get this distinction right, 'cos your wilful ignorance is just annoying at the moment.

A business, small as they may be, shouldn't have an issue admitting that they are (running) a business. And EU law assumes that trustworthy businesses can provide an address somewhere, and certain means to contact them (if they want to do business in the EU).

The DSA would call us traders, not businesses. Why do you keep calling me a business when even the law you're supporting doesn't call us that?

That's it, I'm done. No more. Goodbye.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

No I'm not. I live in the UK. I'm not required under UK law to register a business to sell apps on the App Store. The change here is that EU's DSA says I may be a trader: trader != business.

I posted this point ages ago, and people are either wilfully ignorant of it or wilfully ignoring it. There is nothing in the DSA that says I must become a business.


Again, I'm not even a sole trader under UK law.


You may see that as standardising the means of contact but the actual effect is that individual developers - who the EU now see as traders - have to provide their personal address to everyone in the EU. We don't want to be doxxed, which is why there is an uproar against this. All this will do is remove apps from the EU or cause developers to pay for extra phone lines and virtual addresses etc. No one wins from this, except maybe scammers and bots who will hoover up our personal details.


And they have been rightly found out. But no one needed to see the copycat developer's address on the App Store to get this to happen.


That's quite a bold statement. You're suggesting I'm untrustworthy because I don't want to give 400mn people access to my personal address?

I am not a business. JFC.

The DSA does not require me to become a registered business in the UK, so I am not a business. The DSA does not call me a business. You really need to get this distinction right, 'cos your wilful ignorance is just annoying at the moment.


The DSA would call us traders, not businesses. Why do you keep calling me a business when even the law you're supporting doesn't call us that?

That's it, I'm done. No more. Goodbye.

You are protesting too hard. Yes, you are a trader. It’s just semantics as unless you protect your personal liability you are the legal entity. And when you are a trader you comply with the rules for a trader. It really doesn’t have to be this hard.

The challenge is, that you don’t want your personal details exposed. Fine, if you don’t want that then you have a choice. The most common choice is to make the trader a different legal entity; and with its own registered address away from your private residence.

The choice is yours.

 

[jlc1978]

You are protesting too hard. Yes, you are a trader. It’s just semantics as unless you protect your personal liability you are the legal entity.

Which is why any developer, even a hobbyist, should setup a legal entity to protect their personal assets. Unfortunately, with that comes a new layer of regulation.

And when you are a trader you comply with the rules for a trader. It really doesn’t have to be this hard.

True. I think the EU used trader instead of business to avoid creating a loophole as business often has specific legal meaning already.

The challenge is, that you don’t want your personal details exposed. Fine, if you don’t want that then you have a choice. The most common choice is to make the trader a different legal entity; and with its own registered address away from your private residence.

The problem for small developers is it adds a cost to initially start and an ongoing one, creating a new barrier to entry, if they want to protect their private information. It's not really new, companies have setup such entities to protect their information, such as the place in western Wyoming that has a number of companies whose addresses are all a small strip mall storefront. A hobbyist may simply decide the costs and paperwork are not worth it.

The choice is yours.

As always, but it may result in fewer app choices for EU users; and some losing updates to apps they've already purchased if the app gets pulled. Then, of course, is the question of , should Apple continue to allow d/l the old version in the EU for users who already purchased it, does that now make the developer a trader?

As with many good ideas, there is collateral damage, not from a bullet with your name on it but that says "to whom it may concern."

 

[AppliedMicro]

Again, I'm not even a sole trader under UK law.

I saw that

• you have at least 5 paid apps available from Apple's App Store, at least 2 of which you "advertise" / link in your forum signature
• the web sites for those 2 apps look professionally made (BATT, When's that)
• both of these web sites not only have "terms and conditions" and make frequent and prominent references to "we" and "us"

I also quickly researched that

• the minimum annual revenue threshold to have to register as a sole trader business with HMRC in the UK is just £1000.

I may have mistakenly assumed you qualify as a business then.

It still begs the question:
👉 Are your websites and the "we" and "us" accurate and "trustworthy" representations of a non-business "hobby" developer?

Besides that, the distinction between business and traders is indeed (as cyb3rdud3 and jlc1978 already mentioned) indeed semantics. You're selling apps to a wide audience of consumers on a global marketplace for money.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

I saw that

• you have at least 5 paid apps available from Apple's App Store, at least 2 of which you "advertise" / link in your forum signature
• the web sites for those 2 apps look professionally made (BATT, When's that)
• both of these web sites not only have "terms and conditions" and make frequent and prominent references to "we" and "us"

I also quickly researched that

• the minimum annual revenue threshold to have to register as a sole trader business with HMRC in the UK is just £1000.

I may have mistakenly assumed you qualify as a business then.

It still begs the question:
👉 Are your websites and the "we" and "us" accurate and "trustworthy" representations of a non-business "hobby" developer?

Besides that, the distinction between business and traders is indeed (as cyb3rdud3 and jlc1978 already mentioned) indeed semantics. You're selling apps to a wide audience of consumers on a global marketplace for money.

It is quite remarkable, the protesting, considering the real name is easy to see and many other details 🤷‍♂️

 

[BR3W]

When I signed up for a Developer account I was offered individual or business. I chose individual. There are different requirements for a business.

That's not an option for a developer account and it's a self-selection process with no requirements for either choice.

Directly from https://developer.apple.com/support/compare-memberships/:

Individuals or sole proprietors/single-person businesses. Apps are listed under the developer’s personal name.

Organizations. Apps are listed under the organization’s legal entity name. Companies and educational institutions must provide a D-U-N-S Number (available for free) registered to their legal entity during the enrollment process.


In the context of selling apps the selection is between single-person businesses or multiple-persons businesses.

 

[surferfb]

Having contact details for a manufacturer is beneficial to consumers.
And can be used to legally act or defend any rights violated.

Buying and using products with no one accountable is not a benefit.
It's a benefit to untrustworthy traders, scammers and fraudsters.

Again - contact information is ALREADY required, by Apple. There is ZERO benefit to ANYONE for sharing a hobbyist's personal address to 400+ million people in the EU.

I swear, the EU could come in and take a dump in the middle of your living room and you'd be arguing that it is actually a good thing.

 

[cyb3rdud3]

Again - contact information is ALREADY required, by Apple. There is ZERO benefit to ANYONE for sharing a hobbyist's personal address to 400+ million people in the EU.

I swear, the EU could come in and take a dump in the middle of your living room and you'd be arguing that it is actually a good thing.

Good thing they don’t go after hobbyists. They are after traders. Just like any other trader. It really isn’t anything unique or special being asked here.

 

[BR3W]

Again - contact information is ALREADY required, by Apple.

I mean, that's just false. I've had a dev account with Apple for what must be close to two decades and they certainly don't have valid contact information for me. They are requiring validated contact information now in order to ensure traders are compliant with the law.

Whatever contact information you've provided to Apple in the past certainly isn't obtainable by app end-users. The information wasn't collected with these types of agreements or disclosures in place that would allow Apple to disclose that private information.

The benefit is obvious to anyone who is not being deliberately obtuse: if an end-user has an issue with the app for any reason they now will have the ability to process serve the app developer. The argument that random people are randomly targeting unknown devs to dox them is so far up the absurdity chain it doesn't bear this much attention. We've already had this exact discussion twenty years ago when Germany implemented a similar law ("impressumspflicht") and neither the world nor indie devs have unraveled. To the contrary, the results have been positive.

Regardless, as stated multiple times already whatever Apple does/doesn't do has zero bearing on other digital storefronts like Google Play, Epic Games, etc. This law is not specific to the Apple Store--we're just discussing the Apple Store because of this website's and general demographic's focus.

 

[surferfb]

I mean, that's just false. I've had a dev account with Apple for what must be close to two decades and they certainly don't have valid contact information for me. They are requiring validated contact information now in order to ensure traders are compliant with the law.

Apple already requires developers to give information to end users, mainly a support link and website. Which is all that is needed in 2024.

Whatever contact information you've provided to Apple in the past certainly isn't obtainable by app end-users. The information wasn't collected with these types of agreements or disclosures in place that would allow Apple to disclose that private information.

Not talking about whatever info you've provided info to Apple. Talking about information shared with all 400 million+ EU citizens.

The benefit is obvious to anyone who is not being deliberately obtuse: if an end-user has an issue with the app for any reason they now will have the ability to process serve the app developer. The argument that random people are randomly targeting unknown devs to dox them is so far up the absurdity chain it doesn't bear this much attention. We've already had this exact discussion twenty years ago when Germany implemented a similar law ("impressumspflicht") and neither the world nor indie devs have unraveled. To the contrary, the results have been positive.

Finally - a benefit. "So I can easily sue a developer". I don't think that benefit is worth the cost, but at least it's a reason, if a stupid one.

Again - my issue with the law is there is no exception for small time, hobbyist developers who want to sell an app.

Regardless, as stated multiple times already whatever Apple does/doesn't do has zero bearing on other digital storefronts like Google Play, Epic Games, etc. This law is not specific to the Apple Store--we're just discussing the Apple Store because of this website's and general demographic's focus.

Agreed. It's still a stupid law without an exception for small, hobbyist developers. Which is why it's leading to fewer apps available in the EU, fewer customers for small developers, and less tax revenue for EU countries. Regulation is not always the answer!

 

[surferfb]

Good thing they don’t go after hobbyists. They are after traders. Just like any other trader. It really isn’t anything unique or special being asked here.

Does the EU make kids who sell lemonade in their neighborhood as a trader? What is different between that and a kid selling an app for 99 cents?

 

[BR3W]

Apple already requires developers to give information to end users, mainly a support link and website. Which is all that is needed in 2024.

Not talking about whatever info you've provided info to Apple. Talking about information shared with all 400 million+ EU citizens.

In 2024 Apple now requires and address and phone number along with a support link and website.

The info I've provided Apple, and how it can't be obtained by the general public, is relevant because you stated that it's unnecessary to mandate traders to divulge their personal contact information since Apple already possesses it. Therefore, it's relevant to point out that Apple can't divulge that previously collected information to an interested private party...rendering that argument you formed moot.

 

[surferfb]

In 2024 Apple now requires and address and phone number along with a support link and website.

The info I've provided Apple, and how it can't be obtained by the general public, is relevant because you stated that it's unnecessary to mandate traders to divulge their personal contact information since Apple already possesses it. Therefore, it's relevant to point out that Apple can't divulge that previously collected information to an interested private party...rendering that argument you formed moot.

I think something was lost in translation from Deutsch to English. I never said what you claim I did. The point I was making was that Apple already requires developers to provide users with contact information via a Support Link and a website, which, in my opinion, is all that is actually needed in 2024. I think requiring a physical address is as silly as requiring a fax number. I understand you and others disagree.

 

[AppliedMicro]

a Support Link and a website, which, in my opinion, is all that is actually needed in 2024

...as any fly-by-night operation has.
A support form or email address doesn't allow for reliable proof of receipt/delivery / serving of documents.

I think requiring a physical address is as silly as requiring a fax number.

An address that documents can legally be served to is "silly"?

Few to none developed countries in the world subscribe to that.
Even businesses in the U.S. usually require a physical (mailing) address.

Finally - a benefit. "So I can easily sue a developer".

There are other legitimate uses of sending someone a letter with proof of receipt than suing.

 

[BR3W]

I think something was lost in translation from Deutsch to English. I never said what you claim I did. The point I was making was that Apple already requires developers to provide users with contact information via a Support Link and a website, which, in my opinion, is all that is actually needed in 2024. I think requiring a physical address is as silly as requiring a fax number. I understand you and others disagree.

Yes, something must be getting lost somewhere along the line because my claim that you wrote Apple already has developer contact information is a direct quote from post #267. The belief that it's largely unnecessary (or "silly") for Apple to collect anything beyond a support link and website is necessary for consumer protection. It bears repeating the fundamental point that this requirement is platform agnostic so whatever Apple does or doesn't do is only relevant to the board (in that it's an Apple-centric discussion forum) and not to consumers of alternative iOS storefronts or entirely different platforms, such as, Google Play Store, Epic Games, or any private website where one can obtain an app to side-load onto their platform of choice.

As "stupid" as you believe it to be, a physical address is a fundamental requirement in process serving an entity. While you may not see the point, the relevant points are that the EU has ruled that Apple must open its iOS platform to the public. That creates opportunities for devs to ignore the rules ordinarily maintained by Apple, such as, Apple collecting developer information as you noted (and presumably agree with at least in terms of a support link and website information).

At this point in time, you or I can host our own iOS or Play apps on our personal websites without regard to any regulations Apple or Google may want to implement to ensure the safety and security of consumer devices. I can just host an app that scrapes consumer data and mines on their devices and there's no way for any authorities to reach me or for my consumers to legally demand I cease and desist from any/all illegal conduct. Furthermore, I can now host an app that just blatantly rips off another dev...so in the name of protecting small-time devs by not requiring potential perpetrators to publicize their information disallows someone from protecting their IP.

The EU also has strict consumer privacy regulations. So if a dev who is violating my rights as a consumer is dissemination my private information can't be legally contacted that renders my rights inconsequential. Or even the basic selling of an app that simply doesn't work--I should, as a consumer, be able to contact that entity for a refund. Even if you're a so-called hobbyist, if you sell me something I have a right to contact you for a refund or any other legal purpose. Perhaps the court system is antiquated for requiring physical addresses to sue someone but comparing a verifiable physical address to a technology like the FAX machine doesn't make much sense. There needs to be a way to reach someone and a support website is a laughable substitute in the digital age.

Such a position is only tenable as long as the person who must be contactable wants to remain contactable. If you get someone who doesn't want to be contacted they can opt not to be by just shutting off the website. If someone wants to behave nefariously a mere online presence is an absurd replacement for one's verified physical address.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Does the EU make kids who sell lemonade in their neighborhood as a trader? What is different between that and a kid selling an app for 99 cents?

Answer:

The neighbourhood kid doesn't sell his lemonade on a very large online intermediation platform.
That consumers trust - and Apple advertises - to be governed and regulated.

a stupid law without an exception for small, hobbyist developers

There is.
And it's very simple:

Apple is free to allow "normal" installation (also known as "sideloading") of apps on their devices.
Just like they do on macOS. And Microsoft allows for Windows. Or Google on Android.

Small hobbyist apps don't require a billion-dollar online marketplace (the "App Store") for distribution.

👉 Let the small hobbyist distribute his hobby app directly from his website - problem solved! 👍


PS: Also, why doesn't Apple provide a "proxy" mailing address for their small developers, if they're so concerned about privacy? It's the size of their online platform (the App Store) and their forcing developers to use it for distribution that are covered by the DSA.