Short Reads

ACM launches probe into Apple's App Store

ACM launches probe into Apple's App Store

ACM launches probe into Apple's App Store

02.05.2019 EU law

The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) has announced that it is opening an  investigation into whether Apple abuses the position it has attained with its App Store. The investigation will initially focus on news apps.

A market study into mobile app stores was published on the same day. This market study highlighted three types of conduct that the ACM will further investigate, relating to the favouring of proprietary apps over apps from other providers, unequal treatment of apps in general and lack of transparency.

On 11 April 2019, the ACM published a market study into mobile app stores in general, and those of Apple and Google in particular. Alongside this market study came the ACM's announcement of its investigation into whether Apple abuses its market position through the App Store. This announcement comes only four weeks after music streaming platform Spotify publicly submitted a complaint against Apple with the European Commission, arguing that Apple deliberately uses its App Store to give its proprietary apps (that is, apps developed and made available on the app store by Google or Apple themselves) an advantage over competing apps.

According to the market study, Apple and Google are in the unique position of being able to control the parameters for competition in their app stores, whilst themselves competing with the third-party apps offered in those app stores. In this light, the ACM has highlighted three types of conduct for further investigation.

App providers have indicated to the ACM that Apple and Google put third-party apps at a disadvantage compared to their own proprietary apps. According to app providers, proprietary apps are often pre-installed on users' devices, pay no commission and enjoy full access to payment data and full interoperability with, for example, the NFC chip, or Siri. Meanwhile, third-party apps are said to experience limited interoperability and to be granted limited access to customer and payment data. In addition, app providers are left no choice but to use the Apple and Google 'In-app purchases' (IAP) systems, and must pay commission on every IAP transaction.

Furthermore, the ACM has received complaints about the unequal treatment of comparable apps. App providers question amongst other things the basis upon which Apple and Google distinguish between apps which: i) are granted full interoperability, ii) are obliged to make use of the IAP system, iii) are obliged to pay a commission or iv) are featured in the app store, and apps which are not. According to app providers, both Apple and Google do this in a seemingly unequal manner.

A conclusion on whether these alleged limitations are in fact objectively justifiable will be subject to further research by the ACM on the basis of competition law.

Finally, app providers have also complained about the limited transparency and liability of both Apple and Google, which is said to be most apparent when it concerns the application and interpretation of their terms and conditions. The ACM will initially explore these complaints in the context of the upcoming Platform to Business Regulation.

This is the ACM's first investigative effort concerning an indication of dominant market power on a digital market since its position paper setting out its strategy in relation to this topic [See our March 2018 Newsletter].

 

This article was published in the Competition Law Newsletter of May 2019. Other articles in this newsletter:

Team

Related news

11.09.2019 EU law
Legal trend: climate change litigation

Articles - Climate change cases can occur in many shapes and forms. One well-known example is the Urgenda case in which the The Hague Court condemned the Dutch government in 2015 for not taking adequate measures to combat the consequences of climate change. Three years later, the Court of Justice of The Hague  upheld this decision, and it is now pending before the Dutch Supreme Court. This case is expected to set a precedent for Belgium, i.a. Since both the Belgian climate case and the Urgenda case are in their final stages of proceedings, this blog provides you with an update on climate change litigation.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
Wanted: fast solutions for fast-growing platforms

Short Reads - Dominant digital companies be warned: calls for additional tools to deal with powerful platforms in online markets are increasing. Even though the need for speed is a given in these fast-moving markets, the question of which tool is best-suited for the job remains. Different countries are focusing on different areas; the Dutch ACM wants to pre-emptively strike down potential anti-competitive conduct with ex ante measures, while the UK CMA aims for greater regulation of digital markets and a quick fix through interim orders.

Read more

06.09.2019 NL law
Supervision of crypto services

Short Reads - On 3 September 2019, De Nederlandsche Bank ("DNB") published a press release in which DNB points out to providers of crypto services that they should prepare for imminent DNB supervision. Companies facilitating the exchange of crypto currency for normal money and companies that offer crypto wallets will have to comply with a registration obligation from the beginning of 2020.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
No fine means no reason to appeal? Think again!

Short Reads - Whistleblowers who have had their fine reduced to zero may still have an interest in challenging an antitrust decision. The Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) held two de facto managers personally liable for a cartel infringement but, instead of imposing a EUR 170,000 fine, granted one of them immunity from fines in return for blowing the whistle. The Trade and Industry Appeals Tribunal found that, despite this fortuitous outcome, the whistleblower still had an interest in appealing the ACM's decision.

Read more

05.09.2019 NL law
ECJ answers preliminary questions on jurisdiction in cartel damage case 

Short Reads - On 29 July 2019, the ECJ handed down a preliminary ruling concerning jurisdiction in follow-on damages proceedings in what is termed the trucks cartel. The court clarified that Article 7(2) Brussels I Regulation should be interpreted in such a way as to allow an indirect purchaser to sue an alleged infringer of Article 101 TFEU before the courts of the place where the market prices were distorted and where the indirect purchaser claims to have suffered damage. In practice, this often means that indirect purchasers will be able to sue for damages in their home jurisdictions.

Read more

29.08.2019 NL law
Stibbe partners with the Blue Tulip Awards

Inside Stibbe - Participants in the Blue Tulip Awards can now make use of Stibbe's high-quality legal knowledge, as we have become a partner of the Blue Tulip Awards 2019 in the legal domain. We will provide legal advice on various themes start-ups which have registered for the categories ‘Mobility’ and ‘Finance’. This year's partnership follows our collaboration with last year’s edition, when the event was known as the Accenture Innovation Awards.

Read more

Our website uses functional cookies for the functioning of the website and analytic cookies that enable us to generate aggregated visitor data. We also use other cookies, such as third party tracking cookies - please indicate whether you agree to the use of these other cookies:

Privacy – en cookieverklaring