Tech giant Apple has made adjustments to its proposals in response to criticism from app developers regarding compliance with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) in the European Union. The company has dropped a contentious requirement that developers wishing to create alternative app marketplaces must provide a stand-by letter of credit.
The DMA, which mandates a set of regulations aimed at curbing the dominance of tech giants like Apple, requires compliance from Apple and five other major tech companies by March 7. These regulations are designed to foster fair competition, level the playing field for competitors, and offer consumers more options, reported Reuters.
In January, Apple announced its proposals, which included allowing software developers to distribute their apps to EU users outside of the Apple App Store, along with new fees and conditions. However, criticism arose, particularly concerning the requirement for a stand-by letter of credit for those seeking to establish rival app marketplaces.
Responding to this feedback, Apple announced several changes to its proposals. One significant modification involves allowing developers to sign up for the new terms at the developer account level, eliminating the previous requirement for each controlling membership to sign the Addendum individually.
Related: Apple Denies EU Competition Law Violation Ahead of Fine Decision
“We’ve removed the corporate entity requirement that the Addendum must be signed by each membership that controls, is controlled by, or is under control with another membership,” Apple stated on its website.
Additionally, Apple introduced a one-time option for developers to terminate the Addendum under specific circumstances and revert to Apple’s standard business terms for their EU apps. Moreover, the requirement for a stand-by letter of credit has been scrapped, replaced by two eligibility criteria for developers aspiring to create alternative app marketplaces.
According to Apple, developers can operate an alternative app marketplace if their account has been active for at least two years and they have an established app business in the EU with more than 1 million First Annual Installs.
These revisions indicate Apple’s efforts to address concerns raised by app developers and align with the requirements set forth in the DMA. The modifications aim to foster a more inclusive and competitive environment within the EU’s digital market.
With the March 7 deadline for compliance looming, tech companies like Apple are swiftly adjusting their strategies to meet the regulatory demands of the European Union, signaling a significant shift in the landscape of digital market regulations.
Source: Reuters
The U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has launched an investigation into whether Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc. illegally coordinated to limit driver pay in New York City, according to Bloomberg. The inquiry comes in response to an agreement the companies made with city officials in July 2024 regarding driver compensation.
FTC Issues Information Demands
Per Bloomberg, the FTC sent civil investigative demands—comparable to subpoenas—to both Uber and Lyft in the closing days of the Biden administration. These demands require the companies to submit information within 30 days about the specifics of their agreement with New York City officials on driver pay.
Uber spokesperson Josh Gold confirmed that the company received the demand from the FTC on January 21. The request was signed by former FTC Chair Lina Khan before she stepped down at the end of the Biden administration. Gold stated in an email that Uber believes its actions complied with New York City regulations and that the company would cooperate with FTC staff. Similarly, Lyft spokesperson CJ Macklin acknowledged receipt of the FTC’s request, emphasizing that the company takes antitrust laws seriously and intends to work with the agency on the matter.
Details of the Agreement and Potential Concerns
According to Bloomberg, the agreement between Uber, Lyft, and New York City officials aimed to address ride-share lockouts that had led to lower driver earnings. However, Uber’s spokesperson denied any direct deal with Lyft, asserting that the company did not conspire to restrict driver pay. Despite this, a press release from the New York City mayor’s office at the time described the situation as an “agreement” with both ride-share companies.
Related: Supreme Court Rejects Uber and Lyft’s Appeal in California Gig Worker Suits
The FTC’s concern, per Bloomberg, is whether the agreement allowed Uber and Lyft—normally direct competitors—to coordinate on driver hiring and wages, potentially violating antitrust laws. While New York City officials are not under investigation, the FTC is examining the extent of their involvement in shaping the deal and the legal framework under which it was established. The agency’s staff memo noted that the city’s role could provide the companies with some legal defense, but further investigation is required.
Next Steps in the Investigation
The future of the probe now rests with FTC Chair Andrew Ferguson, who was appointed by former President Donald Trump. According to Bloomberg, Ferguson has the authority to continue the investigation, slow its progress, or halt it entirely.
As part of the inquiry, the FTC is seeking communications between Uber and Lyft, as well as interactions with New York City officials, including the mayor’s office and the Taxi and Limousine Commission. The agency is also requesting a copy of the agreement itself, according to documents reviewed by Bloomberg.
Source: Bloomberg
Featured News
Uber and Lyft Face FTC Probe Over Alleged Collusion in NYC Pay Deal
Jan 30, 2025 by
CPI
Judge Certifies Class Action Suit Against Major Turkey Processors
Jan 30, 2025 by
CPI
US Justice Department Moves to Block HPE’s $14 Billion Juniper Acquisition
Jan 30, 2025 by
CPI
Ticketmaster Snubs UK Probe Into Dynamic Pricing
Jan 30, 2025 by
CPI
Federal Judge Clears Path for Texas-Led Antitrust Case Against Google
Jan 29, 2025 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – International Criminal Enforcement
Jan 23, 2025 by
CPI
The Antitrust Division’s Recent Work to Combat International Cartels
Jan 23, 2025 by
Emma Burnham & Benjamin Christenson
Information Sharing: The New Frontier of U.S. Antitrust Enforcement
Jan 23, 2025 by
Brian P. Quinn, Casey Kovarik & Michael Tubach
The Key Role of Guidelines on Exchanges of Information Among Competitors and the Divergent Transatlantic Paths
Jan 23, 2025 by
Rosa Abrantes-Metz & Albert Metz
Leniency, Whistleblowers, and Compliance
Jan 23, 2025 by
Richard Powers, Tara O’Malley & Cory Gordon