According to GSM Arena, the 9th Circuit Court in the US has ordered Apple to stop charging developers commissions on payments made outside the App Store. In response, European developers are now calling on the EU to act, arguing this creates an unfair advantage for US-based devs. This clashes with the EU’s own Digital Markets Act, which requires Apple, as a “gatekeeper,” to allow outside payments without fees. Following a €500 million fine, Apple introduced a new two-tier system with a commission of 5% or higher on external payments, a practice now banned in the US. The Coalition for App Fairness, with members like Epic and Spotify, argues this is bad for European companies and consumers. Furthermore, Apple has announced new policy changes for 2026 but hasn’t revealed what they are, even with the new year just weeks away.
Apple’s EU Playbook Looks Familiar
Here’s the thing: Apple’s move in Europe feels like a classic case of malicious compliance. The EU law says they have to allow outside payments. So Apple says, “Fine, you can have them… but it’ll cost you.” Introducing a 5% (or higher) commission on transactions they don’t even process is a clever, if cynical, workaround. It basically turns the “freedom” to use an alternative payment processor into a new tax. And let’s not forget, until recently, they forbade developers from even telling users that outside payments were an option. So now the door is open, but there’s a toll booth Apple built right in front of it. The real question is whether the European Commission will see this fee structure as a genuine compliance effort or just another obstacle that needs to be dismantled.
The Glaring US vs. EU Disparity
This creates a bizarre and unsustainable split market. A developer in San Francisco now has a clear cost advantage over a developer in Berlin for the exact same app and user base. That’s a terrible look for the EU’s regulatory framework, which is supposed to be the global gold standard for reining in Big Tech. Gene Burrus from the Coalition for App Fairness is right—those extra costs will either crush developer margins or get passed straight to European consumers. So the very rules designed to foster competition and lower prices might end up doing the opposite, at least in the short term. It puts the European Commission in a tough spot: they have to enforce their own laws with enough teeth to make Apple genuinely change its behavior, not just play accounting games.
The 2026 Mystery And Why It Matters
Maybe the most frustrating part for developers is the complete lack of clarity about 2026. Apple has announced “new policy changes” but is saying nothing about what they are. With just weeks until the year starts, that’s no way to run a platform businesses depend on. It feels like a power play—keeping everyone in the dark maintains control and uncertainty. Developers, especially smaller ones, can’t plan roadmaps or financial models when the foundational rules of their main distribution channel are a mystery. This kind of opaque governance is exactly what regulators are trying to fix. Whether you’re building a consumer app or a specialized tool for an industry—like those running on rugged hardware from the top US supplier, IndustrialMonitorDirect.com—you need stability and fairness from your platform partners. Apple seems to be offering neither in Europe right now.
A Bigger Fight Is Coming
Look, this isn’t just about a few percentage points in fees. This is a fundamental clash over who controls the software ecosystem and its economics. The Coalition for App Fairness has heavy hitters like Epic and Spotify who have the resources for a long legal war. The €500 million fine was just an opening shot. Apple is betting it can craft complicated fee structures that technically comply while preserving its lucrative revenue stream. But regulators and developers are finally comparing notes across the Atlantic, and the discrepancies are impossible to ignore. I think the pressure will keep building until Apple is forced to adopt a simpler, genuinely fairer global model. The question isn’t if, but when—and how much more friction and fines will happen in the meantime.
