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

07.08.2019 NL law
Roderik Vrolijk and Soeradj Ramsanjhal in Global Legal Insights - FinTech Edition 2019

Articles - Roderik Vrolijk and Soeradj Ramsanjhal have contributed to the 2019 FinTech edition of Global Legal Insights (GLI), providing the Netherlands chapter. The GLI FinTech 2019 edition covers approaches and developments in the FinTech sector with respect to regulatory and insurance technology, regulatory bodies, key regulations and regulatory approaches, restrictions and cross-border business in 26 jurisdictions.

Read more

14.08.2019 BE law
Verklaring van openbaar nut is geen "project" in de zin van de MER-regelgeving

Articles - In een recent arrest bevestigt de Raad van State dat "verklaringen van openbaar nut", bedoeld in artikel 10 van de wet van 12 april 1965 betreffende het vervoer van gasachtige produkten en andere door middel van leidingen niet onder het begrip "project" uit de project-MER-regelgeving valt. Of hetzelfde geldt voor elk type gelijkaardige administratieve toelating, is daarmee evenwel nog niet gezegd. Niettemin geeft de Raad met zijn arrest een belangrijk signaal dat niet elke mogelijke toelating onder de project-MER-regelgeving valt.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
General court dismisses all five appeals in the optical disk drives cartel

Short Reads - The General Court recently upheld a Commission decision finding that suppliers of optical disk drives colluded in bids for sales to Dell and HP by engaging in a network of parallel bilateral contacts over a multi-year period. The General Court rejected applicants' arguments regarding the Commission's fining methodology, including that the Commission ought to have provided reasons for not departing from the general methodology set out in its 2006 Guidelines.

Read more

08.08.2019 BE law
Regulating online platforms: piece of the puzzle

Articles - The new Regulation no. 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services, applicable as of 12 July 2020, is another piece of the puzzle regulating online platforms, this time focussing on the supply side of the platforms.

Read more

01.08.2019 NL law
Brand owners beware: Commission tough on cross-border sales restrictions

Short Reads - The European Commission recently imposed a EUR 6.2 million fine on Hello Kitty owner Sanrio for preventing its licensees from selling licensed merchandising products across the entire EEA. Sanrio is the second licensor (after Nike) to be fined for imposing territorial sales restrictions on its non-exclusive licensees for licensed merchandise. A third investigation into allegedly similar practices by Universal Studios is ongoing. The case confirms the Commission's determination to tackle these practices, regardless of type or form.

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