Abstract

This article examines Apple’s response to a €500 million fine imposed by the European Commission for violating the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), specifically its anti-steering rules. In appealing the decision, Apple has introduced a new App Store fee structure in the EU that, while technically compliant, may preserve much of its existing control. The article explores the business and legal implications of this move, and highlights growing regulatory momentum, the risk of global spillover, and the strategic balancing act companies must manage in the face of evolving platform regulation.

Background

Apple Inc. continues to face a wave of regulatory challenges around the world, highlighting the growing friction between dominant digital platforms and evolving competition law frameworks. Just months after setbacks in U.S. and U.K. patent cases, Apple is now appealing a €500 million fine from the European Commission,[1] this time over its App Store practices under the EU’s new Digital Markets Act (DMA). Alongside the appeal, Apple has rolled out a new fee structure for its EU App Store that could reshape developer economics and platform governance globally.

This blog analyzes the EU fine, Apple’s response, and the broader business and legal implications.

Apple Challenges EU Fine Over Anti-Steering Rules

In April 2025, the European Commission fined Apple €500 million (approx. $580 million as of the writing of this post) for breaching the DMA’s “anti-steering” provisions. The law prohibits digital platforms from preventing developers from directing users to alternative purchasing options. Apple had long restricted developers from informing users about external payment methods, a practice the Commission found to be in violation of the anti-steering provisions.

Apple is appealing the decision before the EU General Court, claiming the Commission is overstepping its legal authority. According to Apple, recent changes to its App Store were made to avoid further fines, not because it agreed with the Commission’s interpretation.

Implications:

• Expanded EU Enforcement Powers: The case underscores the EU’s growing role in policing platform behavior, with the DMA allowing proactive enforcement of business conduct.
• Global Spillover Risk: While the EU accounts for a modest share of Apple’s App Store revenue (less than 10%), similar laws are being debated in Korea, the U.S., and other regions.
• Regulatory Momentum: The DMA enforcement sets a precedent that may embolden other jurisdictions to impose platform-level obligations.

Apple’s New EU Fee Structure: Compliance or Control?

To stay within the law (and avoid further penalties), Apple introduced a new multi-tiered App Store fee structure in June 2025 that applies to the EU app store. The old 30% flat commission for all sales made within apps, including in-app purchases and subscriptions is now replaced by:

• A 2% acquisition fee when a customer purchases a digital good or service (first six months after app install);
• A tiered “store services fee” on all sales of digital goods or services with a 12-month period from the date of install (5% or 13% depending the tiered service selected by the developer);
• A 5% “core technology commission” on digital sales within a 12-month period from the date of install to reflect the value Apple provides through ongoing investment in tools, technology and services.

While the structure technically allows developers to use alternative payment methods other than being restricted to Apple’s In-App Purchase system, the combined fees can reach up to 20%. Critics have called the system “compliance theater” where Apple is meeting the letter of the law while preserving their margin and control.

Implications for the App Economy

Apple’s appeal of the €500 million EU fine and the rollout of a new App Store fee model mark a new chapter in the evolving debate over platform power and digital market regulation, with potential far-reaching implications for the App economy:

• Cost Shifts, Not Reductions: The overall economic burden for many developers remains high (reaching up to 20% in potential fees), with added complexity.
• Advantage for Large Players: Bigger apps like Spotify and Netflix may gain cost parity across platforms, while smaller developers face administrative burdens.
• Control Retained Through Design: Apple’s layered fees effectively allow the company to maintain gatekeeping power, albeit through a more complex format.

Conclusion

While it remains to be seen whether Apple’s new App Store fee structure is sustainable and whether the European Commission’s €500 million fine will survive the appeal, this latest regulatory episode is another one in a series of Apple’s recent IP challenges in the U.S. (IPR standards) and in the U.K. (FRAND rulings). It underscores the fact that tech companies must treat compliance as a global imperative.

For companies watching from the sidelines, this is more than a story about one firm’s fines. It is a preview of how legal frameworks, market expectations, and innovation strategies are converging to redraw the boundaries of the digital economy.

[1] CASE DMA.100109 – Apple – Online Intermediation Services – app stores – AppStore – Art. 5(4)

See the full article in the October issue of the Licensing Journal by clicking the link below:

Compliance Theater Apple’s EU Challenge with App Store Developer Fee