Times are not good for Apple in the European Union, which has been punishing for some time those techniques and actions that, according to regulators, threaten free competition, that is, something that is mainly limited to the iPhone ecosystem, its application store and its payment services. An ecosystem that the company itself, through its CEO, has defined as a walled garden, a metaphor that the technology company appeals to for the security and peace of mind it can provide to its users, but which undoubtedly also points in another direction. so positive

Until now, the most recent of these blows was the one Apple suffered after seeing its name included on a list of six gatekeepers, back in September last year. the subsequent obligation to implement a number of changes in iOS, Safari and the App Store. As Apple has already confirmed, these changes will arrive in iOS 17.4, which must be released as soon as possible if the company does not want to violate its legal obligations. It looks like Cupertino is delaying the release of the mentioned version as much as possible, but the deadline ends next Thursday, March 7, so we could already measure it in hours.

Well, while they’re still processing this blow, Apple suffered another setback today, also expected but much higher than previously thoughtdue to a conflict that began nearly five years ago, when Spotify sued Apple on allegations of unfair competition because, according to the dean of streaming services, it was harmed by the App Store’s policies regarding information about alternative payment methods.

Although the lawsuit challenged several points, a key role in this investigation was Apple’s ban on apps available in the App Store that offer access to a prepaid service from informing their users through the store that an alternative and potentially cheaper payment method than that offered by the store with operating system applications. In other words, Apple’s policy was “if you want to put your app on my store, you’ll only be able to offer subscription payment through it,” which obviously has to do with the juicy percentage Apple charges for each payment made. this system. This type of constraint is commonly called against driving.

We already had a preview of what to expect in this case a few weeks ago when it was leaked from the FT that the EU would be fined €500 million, an amount that some thought was insufficient. However, the final blow has since been much greater The European Commission believes it abused its dominant position over a decade and is imposing a $1.8 billion fine as a resultas we can read in the official statement, in which the European body is quite vigorous in prosecuting Apple’s actions in this regard, as well as in this investigation.

?And why was there such a difference between the originally planned fine and the one that Apple will have to pay in the end? Here we find two particularly interesting points, as they may be decisive in future processes of this type. On the one hand, we face a punitive action by the EC against technology, which is stated in the official text as follows:

«It was also taken into account that Apple submitted incorrect information in the administrative proceedings.»

However, it is not clear in this communication what kind of erroneous data Apple presented to the researchers, but the fact that an action of this type is sanctioned is undoubtedly something remarkable.

Now, the most important part, the one that seems to have had the most weight, is to ensure that this penalty is truly dissuasive. In this regard, they say this:

«In addition, the Commission decided to add an additional flat-rate amount of €1.8 billion to the basic amount of the fine to ensure that the flat-rate fine imposed on Apple is sufficiently dissuasive. This flat-rate fine was necessary in this case because a significant part of the damages caused by the infringement consists of non-pecuniary damage that cannot be properly accounted for under the income-based methodology set out in the Commission’s 2006 Fine Guidelines. In addition, the fine must be sufficient to deter Apple from repetition of the current or similar infringement; and to deter other companies of similar size and with similar resources from committing the same or similar wrongdoing.

The Commission concluded that the total amount of the fine of more than 1.8 billion euros is proportionate to Apple’s global revenue and is necessary to achieve a deterrent effect.»

In other words, the European Commission intends to use an exemplary penalty to prevent the benefits obtained from non-compliance with European regulations far exceeding the benefits obtained by the technology company from violating the said legislation.

Apple’s answer

In Cupertino, they are obviously not at all satisfied with the sanction imposed by the European Commission and while as a general rule they tend to keep a low profile when it comes to communication in these types of cases, that was not the case here. On the contrary, they published a statement in which they blame the European Commission, confirming that “failed to uncover any credible evidence of consumer harm and ignores the reality of a thriving, competitive and rapidly growing market» against Spotify, which it accuses of making extraordinary use of the platform and tools created by Apple without having to pay for it.

In the said text, Apple accuses the European Commission of working hand in hand with Spotify to build this case and although not directly related, it mentions several times that the company was founded and is based in Stockholm, Sweden. In this context, it is said that there have been more than 65 meetings between Spotify and the European Commission, since, always according to Cupertino’s version, both sides started working on this accusation already in 2015.

ONpple refers to the current conditions for publishing applications in the App Storeas well as those that will enter into force immediately with the adaptation to DMA, with the fact that the restrictions set by Spotify and the EC do not exist, which also accuses of an attempt to apply the rules set in the said new standard before its approval, that is, by the European Commission, events would be penalized by the current regulations , which occurred at a time when they did not yet exist.

Spotify has yet to release an official statement in this regard, although some news that there was information about the decision of the European Commission and that we can find linked to Time to Play Fair, the website created by the company at the beginning of this legal process.