Apple has written a letter arguing that the changes it has offered to make to its App Store as available in the Netherlands complies with the law, despite the fact that the antitrust regulator has rejected the proposal as ‘not serious’, reported Reuters.
Apple sent a letter to the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) arguing it has already complied with the watchdog’s order. However, the ACM said in a statement it was not aware of any change in Apple’s position and imposed a new fine, marking the sixth such fine imposed on Apple in as many weeks.
Related: On Dutch Apple Fine, Vestager Says US Tech Giants May Prefer Fines To Compliance
Apple’s practice of requiring developers to use its system exclusively and pay commissions of between 15 and 30% on digital goods purchases has come under scrutiny from regulators and lawmakers around the world, many of whom have considered these policies as forms of barriers to entry, thwarting possible competitors and solidifying Apple’s strong position in the App distribution markets worldwide.
The Dutch ruling, which found the company is abusing a dominant market position, applies only in the Netherlands and only for dating apps. However, it could set a precedent for jurisdictions analyzing similar cases. Many experts and commentators have warned of a possible stifling of innovation due to these practices, raising interest among regulators.
The watchdog had already levied five separate weekly $5.7 million fines against Apple for failure to comply with the order, saying that Apple’s proposed solutions put an unfair burden on developers.
A letter from Apple to the ACM dated Feb. 28 seen by Reuters said the solution it has offered would require only a “minor technical change” with no additional costs. The letter argued it is common practice for developers to modify their software to comply with law in various jurisdictions.
Want more news? Subscribe to CPI’s free daily newsletter for more headlines and updates on antitrust developments around the world.
Featured News
Electrolux Fined €44.5 Million in French Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Indian Antitrust Body Raids Alcohol Giants Amid Price Collusion Probe
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Attorneys Seek $525 Million in Fees in NCAA Settlement Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Italy’s Competition Watchdog Ends Investigation into Booking.com
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Minnesota Judge Approves $2.4 Million Hormel Settlement in Antitrust Case
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Antitrust Mix by CPI
Antitrust Chronicle® – CRESSE Insights
Dec 19, 2024 by
CPI
Effective Interoperability in Mobile Ecosystems: EU Competition Law Versus Regulation
Dec 19, 2024 by
Giuseppe Colangelo
The Use of Empirical Evidence in Antitrust: Trends, Challenges, and a Path Forward
Dec 19, 2024 by
Eliana Garces
Some Empirical Evidence on the Role of Presumptions and Evidentiary Standards on Antitrust (Under)Enforcement: Is the EC’s New Communication on Art.102 in the Right Direction?
Dec 19, 2024 by
Yannis Katsoulacos
The EC’s Draft Guidelines on the Application of Article 102 TFEU: An Economic Perspective
Dec 19, 2024 by
Benoit Durand