UK Pushes Apple to Loosen App Store Payment and NFC Rules

[TheMacPotato]

You don’t live in the UK then?

Apple iPhone users in the UK asked to verify age with new update

Customers who do not confirm how old they are or are underage will have web content filters turned on automatically.

www.bbc.co.uk

Yes, I live in UK. I have had a notification from Apple asking if I am OK for Apple share that I am over a certain age with an app - which I have allowed. Apple already knows this info, so doesn't need Government ID (which doesn't even exist).

 

[All Taken]

Also from the UK. Tempted to say I need government ID to use uber eats just so our American friends can repeat it as gospel.

 

[turbineseaplane]

They need to be forced, not pushed. Google has "gotten" the message and it was a matter of time Apple gets with the program.

Yep, it’s the only way to deal with these corporations with more power and resources than many nations.

 

[DocMultimedia]

Attack every corporation and take them down. The modern world of forums.

 

[jarman92]

I maintain that absolutely nobody cares about opening up NFC payments except the executives of big banks/fintech companies, and only so they can suck up even more data on their customers.

 

[jarman92]

Silly. That doesn't actually happen. Apple itself might require some form of age related proof before you can do certain things, but there's nothing government related going on.

...what? You actually think Apple chose to require age verification?

 

[I7guy]

They need to be forced, not pushed. Google has "gotten" the message and it was a matter of time Apple gets with the program.

Better yet vote with your $$$ if one dislikes corporate ethics.

 

[MrSnirf]

Better yet vote with your $$$ if one dislikes corporate ethics.

I can vote with my money as well as vote for government representatives that have my best interest as a consumer at heart. I can even buy Apple products and simultaneously be critical of their anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices. I believe in you fellow poster, you have the capacity to use a product while being critical of the practices of the company that makes said product. Its not either or, we can do both.

 

[I7guy]

I can vote with my money as well as vote for government representatives that have my best interest as a consumer at heart.

That’s the ideal way.

I can even buy Apple products and simultaneously be critical of their anti-competitive and anti-consumer practices.

In your opinion they have anti competitive and anti consumer products. In my opinion they have a tightly integrated ecosystem. You buy into that or not.

I believe in you fellow poster, you have the capacity to use a product while being critical of the practices of the company that makes said product. It’s not either or, we can do both.

Sure one can be critical but we all don’t have to agree that any one company has all the characteristics that posters say they do.

 

[MrSnirf]

That’s the ideal way.

Yep that is why i love how much the EU protects consumer rights.

In your opinion they have anti competitive and anti consumer products.

Its not an opinion, it is a fact backed up by several governments having to step in. It is not an opinion, it is a fact Apple has had to settle in court many times.

In my opinion they have a tightly integrated ecosystem. You buy into that or not.

It is not an opinion that Apple has a tightly integrated ecosystem. It is a fact. It is also a fact that Apple has used that as an excuse to be anti competitive. Can my iPhone run other browser engines? Yes but Apple prevents other browser engines from the App store which is the only store you are allowed to buy Apps from. That is in fact anti-competitive and anti-consumer.

Sure one can be critical but we all don’t have to agree that any one company has all the characteristics that posters say they do.

This isn't a matter of opinion here, it's documented conduct with legal outcomes attached. Blocking third-party NFC access and alternate payment methods, then collecting 30% from developers who have no other distribution channel, are exactly the practices the EU Commission fined Apple over in the Spotify case and the DMA forced changes on. Epic v. Apple in the US also found Apple's anti-steering rules illegal. You can like the ecosystem and still acknowledge regulators in multiple jurisdictions have independently concluded these specific practices were anti-competitive.

 

[Will Co]

...what? You actually think Apple chose to require age verification?

I didn't claim that Apple had a choice. It's the law in the UK, for all service providers, such as internet providers, phone carriers and so on, to know the age of their users so that appropriate age limits can be enforced. Similar rules apply in other countries in which Apple operate.

Furthermore, if Apple can be assured of your age by other means (credit card, age of account, for example) then there is no upload required. My main point being that this is not about identification to the government (i.e. spying on users). It's about confirming age and nothing more.

 

[surferfb]

It’s not an opinion, it is a fact backed up by several governments having to step in. It is not an opinion, it is a fact Apple has had to settle in court many times.

It’s not a fact. It’s an opinion. Just because it’s an opinion some governments hold doesn’t mean it’s a fact.

It is not an opinion that Apple has a tightly integrated ecosystem. It is a fact.

Agree.

It is also a fact that Apple has used that as an excuse to be anti competitive. Can my iPhone run other browser engines? Yes but Apple prevents other browser engines from the App store which is the only store you are allowed to buy Apps from. That is in fact anti-competitive and anti-consumer.

No, it’s your opinion it’s anti-competitive and anti-consumer. My opinion is that both of those policies are very pro-consumer, and in fact, prohibiting Apple from being able to limit third party stores and browser engines is what is anti-competitive and anti-consumer. Although I understand why many tech enthusiasts on MacRumors disagree with that.

This isn't a matter of opinion here, it's documented conduct with legal outcomes attached. Blocking third-party NFC access and alternate payment methods, then collecting 30% from developers who have no other distribution channel, are exactly the practices the EU Commission fined Apple over in the Spotify case and the DMA forced changes on.

Again, it’s the opinion of regulators that it’s anticompetitive. Some of those same regulators thought it was a good idea to force every phone to use micro-USB and think “cookie popups on literally every page the Internet” is a good idea and “let’s force Microsoft to give third party access to the kernel” was a good idea. So some of us don’t hold their opinions about tech in high regard. Just because they have the force of government behind them doesn’t make them right.

Epic v. Apple in the US also found Apple's anti-steering rules illegal.

Because a federal judge misinterpreted a California law, and her ruling only stood because the federal appeal process finished before the California courts had ruled that Apple’s conduct in question did not violate California law. So again, opinion, one that the California Supreme Court and the 9th District disagree on. Not fact.

You can like the ecosystem and still acknowledge regulators in multiple jurisdictions have independently concluded these specific practices were anti-competitive.

I don’t think anyone is refusing to acknowledge “regulators in multiple jurisdictions” have concluded the practices were anticompetitive. We’re disagreeing with their conclusions.

I would also push back on “independently concluded” - as someone who has worked closely with regulators over my career they definitely see what their colleagues are doing and usually want to follow suit.

 

[I7guy]

Yep that is why i love how much the EU protects consumer rights.

And that is why the eu isn’t getting the full set of functionality in iOS. Because of “fairness”.

Its not an opinion, it is a fact backed up by several governments having to step in. It is not an opinion, it is a fact Apple has had to settle in court many times.

It is an opinion. There was no legal finding. Only a set of draconian regulations.

It is not an opinion that Apple has a tightly integrated ecosystem. It is a fact. It is also a fact that Apple has used that as an excuse to be anti competitive.

Citation needed. It’s an opinion they are anticompetitive. There has been no finding. Only a set of draconian regulations.

Can my iPhone run other browser engines? Yes but Apple prevents other browser engines from the App store which is the only store you are allowed to buy Apps from. That is in fact anti-competitive and anti-consumer.

You can do what you want with your phone. The ecosystem comes with advantages and disadvantages. Apple doesn’t have to help you make the phone do what it wasn’t designed for.

This isn't a matter of opinion here, it's documented conduct with legal outcomes attached.

What legal outcomes and where?

Blocking third-party NFC access and alternate payment methods,

It’s apples hardware and software along with a vertical ecosystem. While the DMA played Robin hood, there was no findings on Apple.

then collecting 30% from developers who have no other distribution channel,

Developers opt in to a business arrangement with Apple. It would be one thing if they were forced to opt in, but it’s a discretionary relationship.

are exactly the practices the EU Commission fined Apple over in the Spotify case and the DMA forced changes on. Epic v. Apple in the US also found Apple's anti-steering rules illegal.

One rule still being appealed of ten. To quote yogi Berra: “it ain’t over till it’s over”.

You can like the ecosystem and still acknowledge regulators in multiple jurisdictions have independently concluded these specific practices were anti-competitive.

Yes some countries have created laws to address specific things all of which amount to robbery for Apple. The US hasn’t.

 

[MrSnirf]

It’s not a fact. It’s an opinion. Just because it’s an opinion some governments hold doesn’t mean it’s a fact.

No, it’s your opinion it’s anti-competitive and anti-consumer. My opinion is that both of those policies are very pro-consumer, and in fact, prohibiting Apple from being able to limit third party stores and browser engines is what is anti-competitive and anti-consumer. Although I understand why many tech enthusiasts on MacRumors disagree with that.

Again, it’s the opinion of regulators that it’s anticompetitive. Some of those same regulators thought it was a good idea to force every phone to use micro-USB and think “cookie popups on literally every page the Internet” is a good idea and “let’s force Microsoft to give third party access to the kernel” was a good idea. So some of us don’t hold their opinions about tech in high regard. Just because they have the force of government behind them doesn’t make them right.

There's a difference between "opinion" and "legal determination with binding consequences." When a court rules conduct illegal, that's not one person's take, it's an enforceable judgment backed by evidentiary record, cross-examination, and appellate review. Apple didn't pay billions in EU fines or rewrite its App Store rules because regulators "felt" something, they did it because losing in court has consequences opinions don't. Please get your facts right, none of those regulators mandated micro-USB, 14 manufacturers including Apple chose it as the standard. None of those regulators mandate the cookie popups that you see, those are decisions made by companies who wanted to make the process as cumbersome and annoying as possible.

Because a federal judge misinterpreted a California law, and her ruling only stood because the federal appeal process finished before the California courts had ruled that Apple’s conduct in question did not violate California law. So again, opinion, one that the California Supreme Court and the 9th District disagree on. Not fact.

The anti-steering injunction was affirmed by the 9th Circuit, and the Supreme Court declined to hear appeals from both Apple and Epic in January 2024. That means the ruling is final and binding, whatever procedural sequencing argument you want to make about California courts. A "misinterpreted" ruling doesn't survive the entire federal appellate process untouched.

I don’t think anyone is refusing to acknowledge “regulators in multiple jurisdictions” have concluded the practices were anticompetitive. We’re disagreeing with their conclusions.

I would also push back on “independently concluded” - as someone who has worked closely with regulators over my career they definitely see what their colleagues are doing and usually want to follow suit.

Sure, regulators talk. But the US DOJ, EU Commission, Japan's JFTC, and South Korea's KFTC operate under different legal frameworks, different burdens of proof, and different political incentives, and they've all landed on similar conclusions about App Store practices using their own evidentiary records. That's not one opinion echoing through a hallway, that's convergent findings across independent legal systems. If the DOJ looked at what the EU was doing then we would have 5 years warranty and not 1.

 

[surferfb]

There's a difference between "opinion" and "legal determination with binding consequences." When a court rules conduct illegal, that's not one person's take, it's an enforceable judgment backed by evidentiary record, cross-examination, and appellate review. Apple didn't pay billions in EU fines or rewrite its App Store rules because regulators "felt" something, they did it because losing in court has consequences opinions don't. Please get your facts right, none of those regulators mandated micro-USB, 14 manufacturers including Apple chose it as the standard. None of those regulators mandate the cookie popups that you see, those are decisions made by companies who wanted to make the process as cumbersome and annoying as possible.

The EU tried to mandate micro-USB after they had seen Lightning. That is a fact. In 2013 a Commission official said the fact that Apple included an adapter meant the common charger “does not really exist” and that future agreements couldn’t allow adapters. They even passed a law to try to force it in 2014. But it stalled. And by the time it got picked up again in 2018 USB-C was a thing. But EU regulators absolutely wanted to mandate micro-USB in 2013.

And yes, the EU mandated cookie popups.
The regulation said that sites had to get “informed consent” for tracking, but it didn’t provide a clear, simple mechanism for doing so. That left companies with two choices: either make their sites function without tracking (in most cases, a literally impossible adjustment given ad-driven business models) or build consent banners that strongly nudge users toward “accept.”

Unsurprisingly, most went with the latter. And people like you say “Well actually, it’s the websites’ fault, not the EU’s” as if we live in some magical universe where advertising isn’t the lifeblood of the free web.

So in my opinion on EU regulators’ thoughts on what’s good for consumers is highly suspect, because it’s almost always comically wrong.

The anti-steering injunction was affirmed by the 9th Circuit, and the Supreme Court declined to hear appeals from both Apple and Epic in January 2024. That means the ruling is final and binding, whatever procedural sequencing argument you want to make about California courts. A "misinterpreted" ruling doesn't survive the entire federal appellate process untouched.

A California court adjudicated the exact same claim in another case and ruled in favor of Apple. Then a California Appeals court affirmed the first court's ruling, and the California Supreme Court denied review. So it's settled law in California that Apple's conduct did not violate the state law in question. However, this happened after Judge Rogers rulings and associated appeals. So yes, Judge Rogers’ ruling is binding, but it was still wrong in the first place.

Sure, regulators talk. But the US DOJ, EU Commission, Japan's JFTC, and South Korea's KFTC operate under different legal frameworks, different burdens of proof, and different political incentives, and they've all landed on similar conclusions about App Store practices using their own evidentiary records. That's not one opinion echoing through a hallway, that's convergent findings across independent legal systems. If the DOJ looked at what the EU was doing then we would have 5 years warranty and not 1.

The FTC, DOJ and European Commission set up a formal Joint Technology Competition Policy Dialogue in 2021, and by 2023 the FTC and DOJ were literally stationing liaison officials inside the European Commission to help implement the DMA. The reason they did that was because the two Biden officials (Kahn at FTC and Kanter at DOJ) couldn’t get the rules they wanted through Congress, so as a workaround they worked with a body ideologically aligned with them who had passed legislation aligned with their preferred outcome. And one of them (Kanter) sued Apple in an antitrust case that has a central argument many legal observers say is extremely unlikely to find support in the US Supreme Court.

So you’ve got one “Apple is anti-competive”ideologue simultaneously building the US domestic case against Apple, and also embedded in the institutional structure helping the EU build its parallel case. That’s not “convergent findings across independent legal systems” It’s ideologically aligned regulators working together.

The EU also signed a similar cooperation arrangement with Japan’s JFTC in 2025 to swap investigatory methods on app store cases specifically, and Korea’s and Japan’s platform laws are openly modeled on the DMA’s gatekeeper framework, not independently derived. So this isn’t four regulators in silos happening to land in the same place.

 

[MilaM]

So you’ve got one “Apple is anti-competive”ideologue simultaneously building the US domestic case against Apple, and also embedded in the institutional structure helping the EU build its parallel case. That’s not “convergent findings across independent legal systems” It’s ideologically aligned regulators working together.

The EU also signed a similar cooperation arrangement with Japan’s JFTC in 2025 to swap investigatory methods on app store cases specifically, and Korea’s and Japan’s platform laws are openly modeled on the DMA’s gatekeeper framework, not independently derived. So this isn’t four regulators in silos happening to land in the same place.

Are you suggesting that governments around the world (27 EU countries, UK, Australia, Japan, Korea, Brazil, India) have no agency and are just puppets influenced by travelling US ideologues from one party or the other? That's a pretty condescending attitude.

 

[surferfb]

Are you suggesting that governments around the world (27 EU countries, UK, Australia, Japan, Korea, Brazil, India) have no agency and are just puppets influenced by travelling US ideologues from one party or the other? That's a pretty condescending attitude.

No, I’m arguing that regulators around the world share an ideological bent which leads them to think “big tech bad” and are working together to implement it.

If anything I’d argue EU regulators influenced their US counterparts, not the other way around. But my larger point is that the regulators aren’t “independently” coming to the conclusion Apple is anticompetitive and needs to be reigned in, their ideology leads them to assume, without evidence, Apple’s actions are bad for consumers so they regulate.

 

[I7guy]

Are you suggesting that governments around the world (27 EU countries, UK, Australia, Japan, Korea, Brazil, India) have no agency and are just puppets influenced by travelling US ideologues from one party or the other? That's a pretty condescending attitude.

Doesn’t matter if the attitude is condescending, that is what I believe.

 

[zarmanto]

Are you suggesting that governments around the world (27 EU countries, UK, Australia, Japan, Korea, Brazil, India) have no agency and are just puppets influenced by travelling US ideologues from one party or the other? That's a pretty condescending attitude.

As a matter of fact, the international trail of Epic Games' lawsuits does indeed support this point of view. That's of course only one very topical example... but a determined researcher could easily find any number of instances where ideologues from one region of the world or another have successfully influenced worldwide views on any given topic. So, to further extend upon the comments of both @surferfb and @I7guy... this paradigm is by no means unidirectional; ideologues within the US certainly do influence the world, while ideologues from other countries do so as well. In a sense, we're all puppets... we just don't always realize it, even as our strings are being gently tugged in one direction or another.

Which brings us to your conclusion: I would argue that it's not "condescension" if it can be backed up by documented and observable events.

 

[eifelbube]

Pass them along to consumers or reinvest them? Absolute proof regulators have no idea what they’re talking about.

I’m old enough to remember when the EU said the DMA was going to lower prices for consumers and then Spotify immediately went and raised prices on EU customers. I’m sure that just slipped UK regulators minds, given it was a long time six months ago.

Give it a few more years. Good incentive for Apple and Google to remain competitive within their ecosystems. Both are free to offer the best prices to their customers, tbey’ll be fine and won’t be fined. The regulators are not taking that freedom away. The regulators I do not trust are those assigned to the oil industry.

I recently bought a new harness and a new leash for my dog. The harness I bought at X because it was more $$ at Y and Z. The leash I bought at Y for the same reason. The clip attachment on the harness from X is a standard, thus compatible with the leash clip from Y (and Z). Well, Z lost out in the competition for my business. That is how the free market works, Google and Apple.

 

[joiwomcow]

Except you don't have to provide government-provided ID as proof to Apple.

Or you could read the article.

 

[joiwomcow]

so doesn't need Government ID (which doesn't even exist).

You don't have a passport or driving license?

 

[TheMacPotato]

You don't have a passport or driving license?

I do, but lots don't. There is no official "Government ID". If The UK gov suddenly required everyone to prove their age, via Passport or Driving licence to log into social media there would be a mass outcry as you'd exclude mass segments of the population from using social media.

 

[AstonSmith]

I do, but lots don't. There is no official "Government ID". If The UK gov suddenly required everyone to prove their age, via Passport or Driving licence to log into social media there would be a mass outcry as you'd exclude mass segments of the population from using social media.

You mean there's no national ID. (Yet.) HM Passport Office and the DVLA are both parts of the government, so the documents they issue can only be government ID.

They already did something similar with requiring ID to vote 🤷‍♂️

 

[NightFox]

Or you could read the article.

I did, including this bit (my emphasis):

...which they can do by providing a credit card or scanning their ID

Which I guess is how I've had no problem with Apple's app age-verification process despite never having provided them with any form of ID other than the credit card I have registered for payments on my Apple account.

Sure, not everyone has a credit card, but I'd bet the majority of Apple UK customers over 18 do, so it's disingenuous to suggest that customers will have to provide a form of UK government-issued ID to Apple.