Appleâs App Store payment policy was just dealt another blow in the Netherlands, where the Authority for Consumers and Markets, or ACM, the countryâs top competition regulator, determined the rules violated Dutch competition law by not allowing dating apps to offer users alternative payment options.
In a decision published on Christmas Eve, the ACM said the conditions that apply to dating app providersâwhich are the same applied to all developersâwere unreasonable. It ordered Apple to rectify its policy and allow dating app developers to offer users other payment optionsâinside and outside the app. If Apple doesnât comply with the regulatorâs decision within two months, it could face a fine of up to $56.5 million.
The ACM originally started looking into Appleâs in-app payment policy in 2019, according to Reuters, over concerns that it was abusing its dominant position in the market. The company requires developers to use its in-app payment systemâprohibiting them from linking or directing users to alternative payment methodsâand takes a cut of between 15% and 30% of every purchase. However, over the course of the investigation, the scope was reduced to focus on dating apps.
One of the biggest players in the dating app sector, Match Group, which owns several popular dating apps including Tinder, Plenty of Fish, and Hinge, submitted a complaint to the ACM over Appleâs App Store rules, Reuters reported. Match Group alleged that Appleâs policies were impeding its direct communication with its customers about payments.
In the announcement of the ACM decision, Martijn Snoep, the regulatorâs board chairman, said that protecting people and businesses against abuse of market power in the digital economy was one of the regulatorâs most important duties.
âSome app providers are dependent on Appleâs App Store, and Apple takes advantage of that dependency. Apple has special responsibilities because of its dominant position,â Snoep said in a statement. âThat is why Apple needs to take seriously the interests of app providers too, and set reasonable conditions. That is what we are forcing Apple to do with this order.â
Various countries, including the U.S., have been scrutinizing Appleâs App Store payment policy as of late. In September, a new South Korean law went into effect that bans Apple and Google from requiring developers to use their in-app payment systems.
That same month, Apple announced an agreement with Japanâs competition regulator over âreader apps,â or apps that offer content subscriptions, including magazines, newspapers, books, music, and videos. Under that agreement, Apple will allow developers of these apps to include a single external link to an alternative payment option, such as their own websites.
Meanwhile, in the U.S., Apple is defending its App Store payment policy in the Epic v. Apple case. The judge in that case, Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers, ruled against Apple and said it would have to allow developers to use âbuttons or external linksâ to point users to alternative payment options outside the App Store. Apple has appealed the decision and was granted a delay for compliance, meaning it doesnât have to give developers the ability to offer alternative payment options yet.
An Apple spokesperson told Gizmodo on Sunday that the App Store is âa safe and trusted place for usersâ that offers a great business opportunity for all app developers. The spokesperson pushed back on the ACMâs assertion that Apple has a dominant position in the Netherlands and said the company has appealed the regulatorâs decision.
âWe disagree with the Order issued by the ACM and have filed an appeal,â the companyâs spokesperson said in an email. âApple does not have a dominant position in the market for software distribution in the Netherlands, has invested tremendous resources helping developers of dating apps reach customers and thrive on the App Store, and has the right under EU and Dutch law to charge developers of these apps a fee for all the services and technologies Apple provides them.â
Gizmodo reached out to Match Group on Sunday to request a comment on the ACMâs decision but did not receive a response by the time of publication. Weâll make sure to update this article if we hear back.