Music to our ears? Well, perhaps not for Apple.
A feud first began when the music streaming giant, Spotify, filed a complaint against music streaming provider, and competitor, Apple Inc back in 2019. Spotify accused Apple’s App Store for providing policies that suppressed the competition in music streaming services. Tension had continued to build due to a competing desire to champion vodcast streaming, however, it finally came to a head on Friday when the European Commission issued its formal antitrust charges against Apple over concerns about the company’s App Store practices.
The European Commission: Charges
The European Commission stated that Apple’s dominant position in the market for distribution of music streaming apps through its App Store had enabled it to manipulate competition in the market. The Commission submitted to Apple a statement of objections, which set out how it believed Apple had violated the competition rules and why the tech giant needed to be placed under the antitrust microscope.
The Commission's main charges and antitrust concerns centre upon the two following issues:
- The mandatory use of Apple’s in-app purchase system (whereby Apple charges a 30 percent cut). This is also referred to by many critics as the ‘Apple Tax’. This has been deemed to create barriers to competition and has resulted in consumers looking more favourably towards Apple’s own App offerings.
- Apple’s misuse of anti-steering provisions. This rule prevents an app developer from informing users of other purchasing options (which may be cheaper); thus limiting them to Apple’s own in-app payment system.
According to the European Commission, most streaming providers would pass on a fee to end users by raising prices however, in Apple’s case, it had distorted competition in the market for music streaming services by raising the costs of competing music streaming app developers. As a result, it caused the music subscriptions on IOS devices to be more expensive to consumers.
Apple: An Internet Gatekeeper?
App stores are a key feature of our digital economy. They allow consumers to shop, read the news, access movies and music via apps instead of having to access them directly through websites. Apple Apps Store has been considered the gatekeeper to users of Apple’s iPhones and iPads. As such, it is expected practice that Apple should offer a fair choice to all consumers; to enable a level playing field for all app developers. However, Apple has been criticised for distorting competition; enabling them to achieve an unfair advantage.
Apple however, argues that its App Store does no such thing. In comparison to Google’s monster Android OS, Apple stated it’s IOS global market share is little over 10% and rebuffs the Commission's beliefs that it is monopolising the market. Apple also stipulated that Spotify already activates 99% of its paid subscriptions outside its App Store, but that it failed to provide a breakdown for iPhone and iPad subscriptions alone. Having said this, competition regulators have looked at the relevant market for “IOS apps” and have found that Apple have the ability to monopolise 100% of their sale and distribution; thus giving it the requisite control over the market.
Violation of Antitrust rules
Should Apple be found guilty of violating the EU antitrust rules, the EU could impose a fine of up to 10 percent of its annual revenue, which, on the basis of Apple’s annual revenue of $274.5 billion last year, could reach $27 billion. It could also lead to changes in the tech giant’s business practices to allow for greater competition. However, this is not a closed case. Apple will have a chance to respond to the European Commission’s list of objections over the course of the next 12 weeks. We will therefore have to wait and see what the outcome will be.
Although the recent charges only relate to the music streaming apps, there is already noise that Apple may be pursued on other other App platforms, including Apple E-books and Apple Pay.
It is important to consider this case as one that represents all music streaming platforms, not just Spotify. Should Apple’s investigation result in disciplinary action, we may soon see the introduction of tougher regulatory compliance to help level out the playing field and invite competition from smaller companies. It may allow competitors, such as Soundcloud and Deezer, an opportunity to present their offerings and engage with us as their customers; widening the market spectrum.
2020: Influencer, 2021: Creative Director – what could go wrong?
Coded messages for landlords and tenants
“What does the code of practice mean for landlords and tenants? Read more here”
Jason Saiban writes for Food Manufacture on the food industry's climate change challenge
The key challenge will be how the environmental targets are actually met.
Grab the tail by the horns - Why is tail spend so critical in today’s outsourced portfolio?
It’s usually invisible, but in all likelihood, you’ve got tail spend.
Mark Hill writes for In-House Community Magazine on solutions templating, a new priority for in-house legal teams
Removing the burden from legal teams, contract managers and administrators.
Olivia Crane quoted by SoGlos on the increasing issue of cyber fraud being faced by businesses in Gloucestershire
Cyber fraud has cost Gloucestershire businesses around £369,800 in the last 13 months.
Tattoos, athletes and image rights
Campaigns featuring athletes often include visible tattoos and a number of recent legal cases demonstrate the issues that may arise.
Food Sector steps up on climate goals
Blue Sky Linking
Daniel looks at Sky's recent success in obtaining interim protection from infringement of their broadcast rights
Don’t Gamble on Bingo Ads, Warns ASA
The ASA has issued a reminder to advertisers that bingo adverts will be treated as gambling ads for the purpose of standards regulation.
Recording Phone Calls: Don’t take Consent for Granted
What if an interviewee who is being called and interviewed “live” does not actually know he/she is on live television?
Continuing Progress in the Sphere of Inclusive and Non-Discriminatory Advertising
The latest developments from the ASA, CAP and BCAP relating to the advertising regulators’ attempts to tackle discrimination in advertising.
eCommerce and the Post-Brexit State of Play
Key UK and EU legislation governing how online platforms deal with consumers and their business users.
UK and EU launch two-pronged attack into whether Facebook is abusing a dominant market position
The CMA and the European Commission have said that they intend to work together closely as their respective investigations develop.
Jason Saiban and Caroline Swain among contributors to the ICLG Guide on Digital Business Laws and Regulations in the UK
An overview of the laws and regulations for digital businesses operating in the UK.
Draft Online Safety Bill: Regulating the online world
On 12 May 2021, the UK government published the draft Online Safety Bill...
Counterfeit goods – online platforms and luxury brands take a new collaborative approach
Online retail has been increasing for the best part of a decade due to a shift in consumer behaviour.
Charles Russell Speechlys proud to sponsor the ‘Outstanding Achievement’ award at the final Sunday Times Virgin Fast Track 100 awards
The awards celebrated the successes of Britain’s 100 private companies with the fastest-growing sales.
New foreign ownership rules take effect on 1 June 2021
Trade Marks - what is bad faith?
In any legal dispute, the term ‘bad faith’ is often banded about.