Sure, but apple have been found legally abusing their power in the Netherlands Where this discussion is about.
US law isn’t relevant in the Netherlands
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Dutch Regulator Still Unsatisfied With Apple's Rules Surrounding Dating Apps
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
US law isn’t relevant in the Netherlands
I wrote:
"The salient issue legislators and the Dutch regulator are trying to address is that Apple has made and enforces themselves as monopolists on distributing other‘s products"
Legislators are the people making laws. Acts as such as the Open Markets Act and the Digital Markets Act are taking much broader acting in reducing Apple's power and allowing other distributors of apps. The ACM - so far (though again, part of their order has been suspended and remains unpublished) - has taking narrower steps so far, yes.
? How about you read what I wrote and linked to and then explain your position or make an argument?
Rather than just repeating that often-made claim without any.
Apple, according to their terms, is a commissionaire in the Netherlands, and they define that as well:
"For the purposes of this Agreement, "commissionaire" means an agent who purports to act on their own behalf and concludes agreements in their own name but acts on behalf of other persons, as generally recognized in many Civil Law legal systems"
You can also briefly read up on the term commissionaire on, for example, Wikipedia:
"In European civil law jurisdictions (e.g., France, Germany), a commissionaire is a person who acts in his or her own name for the account of a principal. The principal is contractually bound to deliver (through the commissionaire) the goods sold to the customer; the commissionaire is contractually bound to the principal to remit the price received to the principal"
? This is exactly what happens in the current setup when using Apple's IAP system. Apple acts in their name and receive funds from the customers. The app developer is obliged to deliver.
? When they app provider uses other payments options or refers to payment options outside the dating (as the ACM has ordered Apple to allow them), Apple is "out of the loop": Apple is not acting as a commissionaire in these cases. So why they should they be entitled to a commission?
No commissionaire, no commission.
Where does it say they are entitled to commission on any app revenue?
Their developer agreement - so far as I have read it - doesn't.
I'll rest my case.
Surely Apple are still a ‘part commissionaire’ because the app still comes from the apple App Store and still uses Apple technology to function on the apple device? Being a payment processor isn’t the only thing that makes Apple a commissionaire. Introducing 3rd party payment processors simply means for app developers there will be two commissionaires who they will need to remit a commission to.
No, it's not.
You're misrepresenting legal terms and concepts here.
See for example this explanation:
"In European jurisdictions, a person who acts in its own name for the account of a principal. The principal is contractually bound to deliver (through the commissionaire) the goods sold to the customer; the commissionaire is contractually bound to the principal to remit the price received to the principal. No relationship is created between the customer and the principal. The commissionaire is remunerated by commission, paid by the principal. This relationship is similar to that of an agent for an undisclosed principal in the UK."
https://uk.practicallaw.thomsonreuters.com/4-107-5950
...or here:
"Under civil law, a commissionaire can enter into sales contracts in its own name, but on behalf of the principal, where the commissionaire does not usually bind the principal. In theory the customer cannot sue the principal - there is no contractual relationship between the principal and the customer"
https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/international-manual/intm441040
1) Using Apple's IAP:
Apple will charge the amount and invoice the consumer (in Apple's own name)
? Apple is acting as a commissionaire
2) External payment outside of the App Store:
The dating app store provider (or, possibly, another non-Apple commissionaire) will charge the price themselves and invoice the customer (e.g., you'd receive an invoice from Match Group or their subsidiary).
? Apple is not acting as a commissionaire. They aren't involved in the transaction.
Correct.
And screaming "I just want a commission" doesn't make on a commissionaire either.
It's the contractual relationship between commissionaire and customer (consumer) that defines this:
? And here's the thing: When dating app providers settle these payments outside of the App Store, there is none between Apple and the consumer. It then becomes a direct relationship and contract between the dating app provider and the consumer (though the dating app provider could, of course, employ another commissionaire).
That's why Apple is no commissionaire anymore.
Nonsense. There's just one contract partner that the consumer makes a contract with (though it can be a different one than for the original download of the app) for the dating app services/items I'm purchasing. And that's the payee they have to pay.
Again, if payment is settled outside the store and I'm paying the dating app provider directly, Apple isn't my contractual partner - and not a commissionaire.
Last edited:
PS:
To be clear, I'm not saying Apple couldn't conceivably claim some sort of revenue share for transactions through their. E.g., saying, "you owe us a share, when a transaction gets initiated from one of the apps we host on our App Store" - even when we're not acting as your commissionaire".
It's just that their paid apps developer terms don't cover that. (And of course, any such broad revenue share requirement may even more so considered abuse of their dominant position, or discriminating just a group of their app developers).
To be clear, I'm not saying Apple couldn't conceivably claim some sort of revenue share for transactions through their. E.g., saying, "you owe us a share, when a transaction gets initiated from one of the apps we host on our App Store" - even when we're not acting as your commissionaire".
It's just that their paid apps developer terms don't cover that. (And of course, any such broad revenue share requirement may even more so considered abuse of their dominant position, or discriminating just a group of their app developers).
Thats apples choice. They can chose to lower their profit margin and have a good developer relationship and potentially attract more developers and more consumers. Or increase the profit margins and worsen their developer relationship and potentially lose more consumers and developers.
No law can remove greedy behavior
Because what apple does is legal, the Dutch have to build a “special case” to make it “illegal”. The case is rested and we will see.
What is relevant is that the Netherlands had to build a special law. But they haven’t been tried and found guilty where they get to face their accuser.
No. They Netherlands haven't passed a special law. The ACM found Apple to abuse their dominant position and ordered them to change their business practices according to current legislation.
Whether their interpretation of current law is "correct" or acceptable, will be determined by the ongoing litigation. They preliminary relief judge has found that the ACM's legal arguments are (preliminarily) at least not entirely without merit.
The fact you don‘t seem to like the court‘s findings doesn’t make it a kangaroo court. The Dutch regulator made a regulatory order - and its recipient is free to and did take legal action against it. That’s how states with a rule of law work.
Like I said: you’re not contributing to the discussion.
The ACM didn’t restrict Apple’s commission rate nor did it mandate sideloading. But they ruled that app providers should be able to settle consumer payments without Apple and outside of their IAP. In this case, Apple wouldn’t be acting as a commissionaire anymore. Their current paid app developer terms (from what I can see) only state that Apple is entitled to a commission for its services as a commissionaire. No commissionaire - no commission.
Last edited:
Please avoid personal comments. I simply disagree with the content of your post.
Neither the ACM’s order nor their critique on Apple’s proposal mentioned the commission. The fact that Apple didn’t charge for something that it didn’t allow is irrelevant.
I wasn’t aware Apple had their day in court other than some finding by some regulatory body, which is why I used the term “kangaroo” court.
From ACM‘s order: „ACM orders Apple to put an end to the violation established by ACM. Apple must adjust its conditions in such a way that (…) 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. (…) in addition, they must have the ability to refer within the app to other payment systems outside the app.
Apple want to require developers to make it abundantly clear that the transaction is then not carried out through Apple:
„All purchases in this app will be managed by the developer “<Developer Name>.” You will no longer be transacting with Apple.“
„Any accounts or purchases made outside of this app will be managed by the developer “<Developer Name>.” Your App Store account, stored payment method, and related features, such as subscription management and refund requests, will not be available. Apple is not responsible for the privacy or security of transactions made with this developer.“
? Apple is not acting as a commissionaire in these cases.
Their current Paid Applications Agreement - the one in force at the time the ACM‘s ruling was made - as far as I can see only provides for a commission in the cases where Apple are acting as commissionaire.
? It follows from that that Apple would not be entitled a commission in these cases.
…unless they change their terms and conditions and introduce new obligations for dating-app providers to pay a commission based on new, different and/or expanded circumstances. And that‘s exactly what Apple have announced with their new 27% commission rate - in response to the ACM‘s order.
No, it‘s not. Neither is the new rat.
? This new requirement is suitable to discourage developers from exercising the choice that the ACM‘s order was supposed to guarantee. The new rate seems deliberately designed to do so, by making dating-app providers financially off worse than staying with Apple‘s IAP.
Furthermore, it‘s even more indicative of Apple abusing their dominant market position and being unreasonable with regard to other categories of apps/developers that don‘t pay that (an argument the ACM has made in court, as I already mentioned above).
? It all seems an obvious attempt by Apple at circumventing the ACM‘s order an provide effective choice for app providers.
Last edited:
Why does the 27% commission discourage developers from actually exercising the choice?
It makes them financially not better off than staying with Apple’s IAP. Factoring in costs of reporting to Apple, handling of taxation and additional customers support, it probably makes them off worse financially.
But the ruling isn’t about being financially better off it’s about having competing payment processors. It seems fair to me that Apple reduces its commission to 27% to account for Apple no longer being the payment processor. It’s then up to the developer to find a payment processor that charges either 3% or less.
It doesn’t follow at all. Again, the ACMs response says nothing about the commission in Apple’s proposal.
The argument that Apple can’t charge for something, because they didn’t charge for it when they didn’t offer it is silly.
Dating apps were always required to pay the commission. Apple is just changing the method they collect it because they’re forced to.
No, it’s not only about payment processing. It‘s also about being able to refer to outside payment options and and handle the entire transaction and client relationship with the user themselves.
…for Apple‘s services (when) acting as a commissionaire. That‘s what the terms say.
The order by the ACM means that Apple doesn’t act as commissionaire and…
? Charging 27% for a transaction that Apple aren’t even involved in, is an even more obvious and egregious abuse of dominant market position. And an even more unreasonable condition in light of the ACM‘s findings and arguments.
„ACM comes to the conclusion that Apple abuses its dominant position by imposing unreasonable contractual conditions on dating-app providers. The conditions with regard to the IAP service and anti-steering, which only apply to providers that, within their apps, offer digital content or services, for a fee, result in harm to these dating-app providers“
So developers can handle the entire client relationship, they can choose whatever payment processor they want, and Apple will change their developer agreement to only charge 27% commission to account for Apple no longer being the payment processor.
Win win, everyone is happy.
Dating app providers likely won‘t be (and we both know why).
And, I suspect, neither will and is the ACM.
Why wouldn’t they be happy? They’d have got what they want, the ability to choose different payment processors.
The ACM is forcing a change in terms. Again, expecting Apple to detail terms for something it didn’t offer is silly.