Dutch Regulator Now Happy With Apple's Rules Surrounding Dating Apps

[Abazigal]

If Apple has won, why are the TechNews outlets unanimous in their verdict that Apple backed down? Apple tried to act smart and got taught a lesson. This will be a consideration when they try similar shenanigans while dealing with the DMA and DSA. They will know that they will have to concede or the fines will not stop and their delaying tactics will prove costly for Apple itself. They're lucky the ACM had only limited this to dating apps because of the intervention of the EU. For Apple, it is a bad template as they will have to pay fines and also concede to implement the regulations that they have tried to circumvent.

Apple backs down in dating app dispute with regulator ACM

Dating apps can now use alternative payment methods on the Dutch App Store. Thereby, Apple gives in to the demands of local market regulator ACM. The ACM

www.techzine.eu

Apple Racked Up Over $50M in Fines Before Conceding to Dutch Regulators

But now the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets is content.

www.pcmag.com

You mean why are tech news outlets interested in peddling clickbait over objective reporting of the news?

Based on how this case has turned out, I am even more confident that Apple will do the following with regards to the EU situation.

1) Delay enforcement until all of Apple's legal options have been exhausted. You never know, Apple just might be able to eke out a legal win somewhere. Either way, there is simply no justification for Apple to fold right away and concede defeat.

2) Buy time to come up with a plan for embracing side-loading on iOS, in the (likely) event that their legal avenues go nowhere.

As to how side-loading on iOS might look like, I imagine it would be a toggle that users need to manually turn on (similar to the ATT prompt), that comes with a huge scary warning (similar to the 3rd party keyboard prompt) that should scare off the majority of users. It would also pepper users who attempt to download an app outside the App Store with various notifications warning of security and privacy implications.

Apple could go even further to withhold some AppleCare+ coverage for devices that have sideloading turned “on.” The same can be said for certain iCloud features being turned off on devices with sideloading.

In addition, Apple could also pursue other options aimed at developers if required to embrace sideloading, such as requiring iOS developers who distribute through the App Store to only allow apps on devices that have sideloading turned off. In short, it would either be the App Store, or their own third party store, but not both.

Not to mention that apps sold outside the App Store may still have to pay Apple some part of their proceeds, depending on how far Apple is determined to pursue the issue.

But this is just what one guy can come up with off the top of my head. I am sure Apple with their armies of lawyers and engineers, can do way better. 😊

 

[klasma]

With payments arranged outside Apple’s control, does that mean they can do easy payments using sexual favors as currency?

Only if Apple receives 30% of those sexual favors.

 

[8CoreWhore]

Sounds like the competition regulator is spending too much of his salary on dating app fees.

 

[h0ndaf4n]

This is probably unfortunately true considering that Match Group has been one of the groups stateside fighting for alternative payment systems. They’re definitely masters of the dodgy subscription scheme, with multi month mandatory payment schemes (for Match itself, you simply can’t get a subscription month by month, they’re either three, six, or twelve months, but you pay each month), difficult cancellations (considering that “match.com subscription cancellation” and “match.com subscription refund” are two of the top Google autocomplete suggestions for “match.com subscription” gives you a bit of an insight into what you’re getting into), and they’ve been known flat out to engage in fraud to get you to pay up (they got busted by US courts back in 2019 or early 2020 sending messages from fake profiles to people using Match.com for free, in order to trick them into paying so they could see messages).

This is Match Group, the face of mainstream online dating (only real competition is eHarmony and Bumble). And this is just Match.com, I can only imagine how aggressively monetized Tinder is (and some of their other properties are), and the subtle algorithmic tweaks and dark patterns they employ to convince you to pay for it. I’ve vowed never to give Match Group a single cent more, personally, due to how dodgy they are.

So it really wouldn’t surprise me at all if cancellation dodging is part of the plan. I was downloading apartment apps back in 2019, and I downloaded what turned out to be an exclusively Dutch app. And, before I could realize that, I’d picked the trial subscription option (3 days, followed by a $100+ USD price per month or maybe six month period). The fact that cancellation of Apple subscriptions is so easy and trustworthy was a real life saver. I was able to quickly realize “wait, these are all Dutch listings” and immediately cancel the subscription during the trial phase.

You can do month to month, what are you talking about….

 

[h0ndaf4n]

If Apple has won, why are the TechNews outlets unanimous in their verdict that Apple backed down? Apple tried to act smart and got taught a lesson. This will be a consideration when they try similar shenanigans while dealing with the DMA and DSA. They will know that they will have to concede or the fines will not stop and their delaying tactics will prove costly for Apple itself. They're lucky the ACM had only limited this to dating apps because of the intervention of the EU. For Apple, it is a bad template as they will have to pay fines and also concede to implement the regulations that they have tried to circumvent.

Apple backs down in dating app dispute with regulator ACM

Dating apps can now use alternative payment methods on the Dutch App Store. Thereby, Apple gives in to the demands of local market regulator ACM. The ACM

www.techzine.eu

Apple Racked Up Over $50M in Fines Before Conceding to Dutch Regulators

But now the Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets is content.

www.pcmag.com

Apparently Apple wins when they lose 🤷🏻‍♂️ Strange logic to say the least…

 

[h0ndaf4n]

You win the internet today. 🤣

It wasn’t that funny…

 

[BaldiMac]

Thank goodness the Dutch "consumer" protection agency did its job to protect a multi-national conglomerate. Now Dutch consumers on iOS can look forward to being screwed by Match Group variable pricing schemes like everyone else!

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

 

[Beautyspin]

If the Dutch can do it, so can you! Kudos to Apple for holding on to 27%.

Nope. Apple lost.

 

[WWPD]

If the Dutch are happy the world can rest easy, you don't want to piss off the Dutch.

 

[Beautyspin]

You mean why are tech news outlets interested in peddling clickbait over objective reporting of the news?

Based on how this case has turned out, I am even more confident that Apple will do the following with regards to the EU situation.

1) Delay enforcement until all of Apple's legal options have been exhausted. You never know, Apple just might be able to eke out a legal win somewhere. Either way, there is simply no justification for Apple to fold right away and concede defeat.

2) Buy time to come up with a plan for embracing side-loading on iOS, in the (likely) event that their legal avenues go nowhere.

As to how side-loading on iOS might look like, I imagine it would be a toggle that users need to manually turn on (similar to the ATT prompt), that comes with a huge scary warning (similar to the 3rd party keyboard prompt) that should scare off the majority of users. It would also pepper users who attempt to download an app outside the App Store with various notifications warning of security and privacy implications.

Apple could go even further to withhold some AppleCare+ coverage for devices that have sideloading turned “on.” The same can be said for certain iCloud features being turned off on devices with sideloading.

In addition, Apple could also pursue other options aimed at developers if required to embrace sideloading, such as requiring iOS developers who distribute through the App Store to only allow apps on devices that have sideloading turned off. In short, it would either be the App Store, or their own third party store, but not both.

Not to mention that apps sold outside the App Store may still have to pay Apple some part of their proceeds, depending on how far Apple is determined to pursue the issue.

But this is just what one guy can come up with off the top of my head. I am sure Apple with their armies of lawyers and engineers, can do way better. 😊

The DMA is ex-ante. That means, the EU commission specifies the dos and don'ts and the companies have to abide by them. They will have to keep sending annual compliance reports to the EU commission. If not, the commission will impose fines on them. Apple (or whichever company has transgressed the regulations) has to prove (the burden of proof is now on Apple) that it has not transgressed. The fines will be calculated for each transgression so that the max fine will be 10% of its global turnover and it can go up to 20% if it is systematic transgression. Gatekeepers are obliged to create specific compliance departments within their firms and install risk management systems (Art. 24b). Even if that fails, there are more steps that it can take. The reason why DMA has been enacted is to ensure that companies cannot take advantage of delays through legal shenanigans.

Also, private claimants can bring actions against non-compliant gatekeepers before the courts of EU Member States. Available remedies, in this case, should include damages and injunctions. As such, private enforcement could develop into a powerful tool for gatekeepers’ business customers and competitors to ensure gatekeepers comply with the DMA. Article 42 clarifies that representative consumer actions can be brought for infringements of the DMA.

 

[The Phazer]

why only dating apps? why are they special?

Because a group of dating apps filed the initial complaint.

Now that the case has concluded other groups of apps will likely make the same complaint and get the same concession.

 

[hortod1]

There are only two things I can’t stand in this world: people who are intolerant of other people’s cultures… and the Dutch

 

[Unregistered 4U]

If Apple has won, why are the TechNews outlets unanimous in their verdict that Apple backed down?

Because that gets clicks for the TechNews outlets, obviously This is what Apple defined in the beginning and was indicating it would take some time to complete as they wouldn’t be able to make a structural change like this without extensive testing. There were several iterative steps that Apple indicated would be required. The regulators not understanding technology did not understand how iterative changes DOES mean that they’re working towards a solution.

Apple said, “This is what we’ll do”, they said, “Nonononononononononoyes”. Makes sense, the “no’s” netted the government 50 million dollars!

 

[mikethemartian]

There are only two things I can’t stand in this world: people who are intolerant of other people’s cultures… and the Dutch

Edward Van Halen was Dutch and I’m not going to stand idly by and allow you to cast aspersions against Eddie.

 

[_Spinn_]

why only dating apps? why are they special?

This makes no sense to me either. Why the special carve out?

 

[kc9hzn]

Edward Van Halen was Dutch and I’m not going to stand idly by and allow you to cast aspersions against Eddie.

It’s a reference to the Austin Powers series. In fact, it’s a direct quote from Austin’s father, Nigel Powers.

 

[tucupeis]

What exactly was the concession again? The developers still need to pay Apple their cut even on transactions made via third party payment options, right?

of course... developers cant get free service from apple store like any manufacturer cant get zero margin reselling in any physical store

 

[tucupeis]

This makes no sense to me either. Why the special carve out?

prostitution. they want to make sure apple doesnt get end customer credit card/payment info

 

[AppliedMicro]

Headline is a bit premature. To quote the ACM's press release, emphasis mine:

"In August 2021, ACM imposed an order subject to periodic penalty payments on Apple. Apple filed an objection against this order. At the same time, Apple asked the court to suspend the order as well as publication of ACM’s decision. The part of the order that is relevant here was upheld by the court in December 2021, which meant that ACM was allows to publish that part of the decision. The other part of the order was suspended by the court until after the objection process, and ACM cannot publish this part. It then took a while before Apple finally complied with the cleared part of the order. (...)

👉 The procedure regarding the objection against ACM’s full order is still ongoing." 🤡

So yeah... they're satisfied with the part of the order that they could publish and that Apple has finally satisfied.
We're still waiting for chapter 2 regarding the yet unpublished other part of the order that will be drawn out in court.

 

[sudo-sandwich]

So many of you seem to think to think that these people in government are stupid 🙄

No, I don't seem to think, I just think that.

 

[kc9hzn]

So many of you seem to think to think that these people in government are stupid 🙄

The thing is, working for the government, especially in a policy making/regulatory capacity, is a lot like journalism. As part of your job, you’re expected to deal with and be knowledgeable about a wide range of fields, an impossibly wide range of fields. This inevitably leads to you on occasion writing an article or drafting new policy on something you have no technical knowledge of. In the terms of governance, this makes you particularly susceptible to lobbying, for instance. Lobbying makes sense from the perspective of the outside interests doing the lobbying, they want laws that are favorable to them. And the opposition to any one case of lobbying or any one decision is usually quite low. And Europe seems to have a natural bent towards protectionism (especially in “tech firms” broadly speaking), both in the law-making of EU member states and in the EU broadly. Which means that these governments are unusually vulnerable to lobbying campaigns conducted by local firms with beef against, typically, larger American tech firms. (In fact, I legitimately doubt, had Apple wanted to buy Spotify, that the EU would have permitted it, same goes for any American firm, since Spotify was a rare case of a successful European startup. Yet there are no major European tech firms who would have been in a position to buy Spotify.)

But power hunger is also an issue you have to deal with when focusing on government policy making. Regulatory bodies will almost always push for the broadest interpretation of statute that gives them more power. Yet there’s very little democratic oversight when it comes to regulatory bodies, and most legislative bodies seem not to practice sufficient oversight (therefore, taxpayers have very little ability to influence the regulatory body, except through its own internal mechanisms). For example, in the US Constitution, there’s the concept of checks and balances, but regulatory bodies (considered part of the Executive branch) exercise legislative and judicial powers, as well, with very few checks and balances. And the Supreme Court effectively signed off on this state of affairs decades ago. With minimal oversight, it’s quite possible for overly broad and/or overly strict regulations to promulgate.

A more fundamental issue is the government monopoly, particularly on force. Generally speaking, few markets are so concentrated so as to have no competition whatsoever. High prices for a product and shortages are a strong signal to entrepreneurs that there’s money to be had in bringing that particular good to the market. In general, though, prolonged shortages tend to be the result of government actions, such as steep, potentially overly steep, licensing requirements or other legal barriers to meeting demand. There is a tendency to treat corporations with suspicion but to trust governments thoroughly. But it’s not like corporations force governments to let them operate without impunity. Ultimately, every government body and every government action is backed by the taxation, policing, and military power of said country. And it’s significantly easier for an entrepreneur to bust a monopoly or cartel than it would be to introduce a new government to act in the people’s interests (assuming the current one doesn’t, and we can all point out ones that don’t, I’m sure). Ultimately new governments generally require war, significant use of force, and excess death, and the process of establishing them is prone to failure. Even secession within the framework of the existing government (ie state, county, or city level secession to form a new state within the union, a new county within the state, or a new city within a county or state) tends to be quite difficult and requires significant pressures over the years. Governments rarely change structures once established. So, in general, I strongly prefer economic decision making to be handled by the market and not the government because it’s a whole lot easier to break up a monopoly by entrepreneur action than it is to break up a government and its monopoly on force.

 

[svish]

Finally Apple gets a break on this one! Glad everything is sorted out.

 

[AppliedMicro]

And Europe seems to have a natural bent towards protectionism (especially in “tech firms” broadly speaking), both in the law-making of EU member states and in the EU broadly. Which means that these governments are unusually vulnerable to lobbying campaigns conducted by local firms with beef against, typically, larger American tech firms

1. Looking at the state of lawmaking in the US, I don’t think there’s any „unusual“ level of lobbying in the EU. Especially not compared to the US, which are regularly perceived as a more corrupt country than many EU states
2. Going back to this topic, we know of one company that’s been involved in the ACM‘s action against Apple, even in court. It‘s not a „local firm“ - it’s American Match Group.
3. I don’t see more protectionism in the EU than in the US, especially not in the IT and software sector. What the EU and (some) European countries are more inclined to are consumer protection and market interventionism.

Last but not least:
Regulators and lawmakers in several countries around the world - and it happens on Apple’s and Google’s home turf in the US as well - seem to think the market power of „gatekeepers“ is an issue and undesirable market situation that impedes competition and is prone to anticompetitive behaviour by gatekeepers.

👉 Whether one agree with that or not: It doesn‘t require any corporate lobbying efforts or (as sometimes alleged) outright bribery or corruption to arrive at that conclusion. And neither do you have to be power hungry, nor favour local companies over American ones.

In the context of regulating (Apple and Google), I often read allegations that „they“ (politicians and/or regulators)
„must have been bought“
„must hate the US and American companies“
„must just want to prop up their local businesses“

There’s very little substance or substantiating in these allegations.

 

[AppliedMicro]

Glad everything is sorted out.

It’s not. See above.

There’s parts of the regulator‘s order that are unpublished and still fought over in court.

And I wouldn’t be surprised if they are the more „salty“ and impactful parts, once they‘ll come to light.

 

[kc9hzn]

It’s not. See above.

There’s parts of the regulator‘s order that are unpublished and still fought over in court.

And I wouldn’t be surprised if they are the more „salty“ and impactful parts, once they‘ll come to light.

And I think these sorts of unpublished orders are probably the sort of thing that should be avoided in a democracy. They reek of secret law, secret court, and secret regulations, which kinda flies in the face of the concept of democracy. In the US, we have an issue where we don’t know how many federal laws are on the books. Part of this is Congress’s fault (omnibus bills and riders), part of it is the President’s fault (executive orders), but the vast majority of these stealthy, largely unknown laws are promulgated by regulatory bodies.

There’s the expression that “ignorance of the law is no excuse”, but that expression is hard to support in a world where court orders may be made against you without your knowledge in secret courts under some claim of national security, where regulatory bodies promulgate rules that not even a lawyer specializing in that field may be aware of, and where laws are passed before they can be read in full. Not to mention apparent ex post facto law making, “we don’t like how this has been done for years, but we’ll suddenly make a motion against you for violating laws that we haven’t published [or seemingly, even fully written] yet”.