The EU narrows its long-running Apple antitrust case, removing IAP objections and focusing on stopping apps from telling users about other subscription options
Antitrust investigation to look at how tech giant deals with subscription information from streaming services such as Spotify
Financial TimesJavier Espinoza
Context & Ripple Effects
The case began with Spotify's complaint over App Store fees and progressed to the EU's initial probe into Apple's App Store conduct and 2021 charges alleging that Apple squeezed music-streaming rivals through in-app payments. The revised focus drops the payment-system objection that underpinned those charges and concentrates the dispute on whether subscription apps can direct users to alternatives outside the App Store.
That narrower theory matters because it targets how streaming services communicate with customers rather than requiring a finding about Apple's IAP terms themselves. Apple was still preparing to contest the EU's App Store-curb allegations at a later hearing, keeping the anti-steering issue central to the dispute.
First-order effects
Apple faces a narrower EU case: the IAP objection is removed, while its limits on apps informing users about other subscription options remain under scrutiny.
Spotify and other subscription streaming apps have their complaint concentrated on customer communication and external subscription choices, rather than Apple's in-app payment requirement.
Second-order effects
Subscription-app developers seeking to steer customers to external sign-up routes gain a more focused regulatory theory, while Apple can concentrate its defense on its rules governing app messaging.
The narrower case separates the fight over subscription discovery from the broader IAP model, reducing the immediate scope of the EU proceeding for Apple while preserving pressure on its App Store rules.
Third-order effects
If this enforcement approach holds, App Store regulation will increasingly distinguish payment processing from anti-steering rules that control how subscription services reach and retain customers.
The dispute points toward competition cases centered on gatekeepers' control of subscriber information, a pressure point for services facing the earlier allegation of App Store squeezing in music streaming.
The trend: Platform antitrust scrutiny is narrowing toward anti-steering restrictions that shape subscription services' direct relationships with users.
EUAntitrust Commission 🇪🇺 sends Statement of Objections to Apple clarifying concerns over App Store rules for music streaming providers 🔗➡️https:// www.shorturl.at/djxC5 https://twitter.com/...
That's pretty much as close as you're going to get to a finding of “upon further investigation, this restriction was objectively justified”. https://ec.europa.eu/... https://twitter.com/...
Big news (in our small antitrust world): @EU_Competition “clarifies” its concerns over App Store rules for music streaming services, dropping from its Statement of Objections the obligation to use Apple's payment mechanism IAP, which leaves only the anti-steering obligation. 1/2 …
Also new: @EU_Competition considers anti-steering, which prevents developers from informing users of cheaper subscription options (i.e., the web), an unfair trading condition (Art 102(a) TFEU). Interesting to see the EC choose an exploitative abuse, as @AutoriteitCM also did. 2/2
I wonder what forced the rethink. The ACM remedies saga (which ended with Apple lowering its fee from 30 to 27%) made abundantly clear that IAP is just a convenient mechanism—not the sole way to levy a fee. Also, DMA will ban both the IAP & anti-steering obligation. 2bis/2bis
Spotify's GC Eve Konstan on today's developments: “Today, the @EU_Commission sent a clear message that Apple's anti-competitive behavior and unfair practices have harmed consumers and disadvantaged developers for far too long.” #TimeToPlayFair https://twitter.com/...
NEW: EU enforcers hit Apple with a revised antitrust chargesheet in the Spotify case. EC throws out previous concerns on in-app payment tech and focusses on anti-steering actions which stop developers from informing users of cheaper music subs: https://ec.europa.eu/...
Today, the European Commission confirmed consumers are harmed because Apple won't play fair. See why this means momentum is on our side. https://newsroom.spotify.com/ ...
Credit to Apple for fighting the case and forcing a rethink. Credit to EC for (it seems) accepting things needed to change, doing so and being transparent about it. Obviously, it might all be pointless anyway. The #DMA will apply to both of the Apple rules!! /end
What's changed? EC had two original complaints: one over ‘in app payment’ (IAP) rules (obligation to use Apple's payment system/commission); the other over anti-steering (curbs on pointing customers to cheaper payment options). The first is no more. It's all on the second now/3
I translate: our first idea wasn't that good, but we really want a case against Apple / protecting Spotify so we found another one. https://twitter.com/...
Big (interim) win for @Apple in its fight with @EU_Commission & @vestager over AppStore. The EC has dropped half its case against the company over App Store rules, and issued a “Replacement” charge-sheet. This kind of stuff is rare in Brussels. https://ec.europa.eu/... /thread
Essentially, EC has had to recast its case, dropping objections to IAP and doubling down on “anti-steering” issue. EC could say this is just “due process” at work. It listens to the defendant & reacts. Lawyers will say: EC case was weak & it was forced to abandon a big chunk/2
There we go. “The Commission takes the preliminary view that Apple's anti-steering obligations are unfair trading conditions in breach of Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ('TFEU').” https://twitter.com/...