Consumer group critiques proposed fee structure as insufficiently consumer-friendly
Apple’s recently proposed revisions to its European App Store business terms have drawn sharp criticism from both developers and advocacy groups. The company contends these changes streamline compliance with Digital Markets Act (DMA) requirements while reducing financial complexity for developers distributing apps across EU markets.
Under the new framework, apps utilizing Apple’s In-App Purchase (IAP) system maintain a 26% commission rate, with reductions to 15% available for developers enrolled in qualifying programs and auto-renewing subscriptions after the first year. Alternative payment processors face a 20% rate (10% for qualifying developers), while apps directing users to external payment methods are subject to a 15% commission (10% reduced rate). A new “Core Technology Commission” of 5% applies to apps using alternative distribution channels.
Announced on August 18, these changes aim to consolidate Apple’s previous business terms for EU developers, which were revised following a €500 million fine by the European Commission. However, the company continues to face accusations of non-compliance with DMA mandates that require greater openness to third-party app stores and payment systems.
Apple asserts the modifications reflect “close collaboration with the European Commission” to resolve longstanding disputes over App Store practices and alternative distribution mechanisms. “These updates provide clarity and fairness while maintaining the security and reliability App Store users expect,” the company stated.
Epic Games, a prominent critic of Apple’s App Store policies since the 2018 App Store dispute, sharply criticized the proposals. “This scheme is nothing more than junk fees wrapped in bureaucratic language,” stated a spokesperson. “While the Commission requires Apple to allow developers to direct users to external purchasing options at no additional charge, Apple continues to impose unnecessary financial burdens through its alternative payment fees.”
The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) has also expressed concerns about practical implementation. Senior officer Sébastien Pant noted while the fee structure appears simpler on paper, “the real test will be whether consumers actually see meaningful benefits.” The group highlighted specific concerns including whether users will face intrusive “scare screens” when choosing external payment options, and if alternative app stores will be genuinely accessible without artificial friction.
Apple emphasizes its commitment to child safety, stating it has “worked closely with regulators on enhanced parental controls” for alternative payment systems. However, critics argue these measures do not address the core issue of platform monopolism.
Developers have until October 1 to implement the new terms, which will take effect for all EU-based transactions starting that date. The changes maintain Apple’s dominant position while attempting to fulfill regulatory obligations through a framework that critics argue remains unfairly structured in favor of the platform.
®
