Author丨Xiao Xiao.
Editor丨Wang Jun.
Figure source丨Figure worm.
On March 4, local time, the European Commission announced in a statement that Apple was suspected of abusing its dominant position in the **stream** market, constituting an unfair trade. The European Commission said it would open overAn antitrust fine of 1.8 billion euros (about 14 billion yuan)."Shock" apples.
The focus of this punishment is Apple's "anti-bootstrap clause". "Anti-bootstrap clause" refers to Apple's blocking of **streaming** to inform consumers of preferential information, products**, and purchase methods outside of the Apple App Store.
Regarding the European Commission's penalty decision, Apple issued a statement sayingThe European Commission found no credible evidence that consumers were harmed, so the company will appeal.
It is worth noting that the penalty was issued on the eve of the entry into force of the EU antitrust regulation Digital Markets Act, and the total amount of the fine is about 05%。
Two days later (March 6, local time), the EU's Digital Markets Act will officially come into effect for Apple. The regulation is more broad, with penalties capped at 10% of global turnover. Apple's adjustment and "blatant provocation" attitude have already caused a lot of dissatisfaction, and the impact of the Digital Markets Law on the market position of tech giants remains to be seen.
From distorting market competition to exploiting consumers
Apple's fine this time originated from a complaint filed by the European streaming giant Spotify in 2019.
The complaint alleges that the Apple App Store takes about 30 percent of the "Apple tax" on developers, forcing developers to increase their subscription services and preventing developers from sharing information about subscriptions with Apple users. Spotify points out that Apple has its own **streaming** Apple Music, which is both a player and a referee, and therefore puts other **streaming** at a disadvantage.
In June 2020, the European Commission launched antitrust investigation proceedings, and the main concern at the time was to distort market competition.
In April 2021, the European Commission formally submitted a statement of objection, preliminarily arguing that the Apple App Store distorts competition in the **stream market by forcing competitors to raise costs).
In February 2023, the objection to the revision of the statement narrowed the scope of the investigation - the spearhead of antitrust is no longer pointed at the "Apple tax" hurting developers, but at the Apple Store preventing consumers from learning about other payment methods. For example, Spotify is forbidden to notify users in the Apple Store or app that they can open a membership on Spotify's official website for $3 cheaper**. The EU considers that such behaviour constitutes unfair trade and harms the rights and interests of consumers.
Some consumers may be paying more because they don't know they can pay less if they subscribe outside of the Apple store. There are other consumers who may not be able to subscribe to their favorite streams at all because they simply can't find them. The European Commission's head of competition said at a press conference.
In this penalty statement, the EU emphasized:Apple withholds key information about ** and service features from consumers, depriving them of free choice. This behavior has lasted for nearly a decade and may also lead to many Apple users paying significantly higher for streaming subscriptions, as Apple imposes high commissions on developers and passes them on to consumers in the form of higher subscriptions.
According to foreign media reports last month, Apple may face an antitrust penalty of 500 million euros for its **flow** business. At that time, Deng Zhisong, a senior partner at Beijing Dentons, told 21 reporters, "The EU's anti-monopoly supervision has always been known for its strictness, and if Apple is fined 500 million euros, it will once again show the EU's zero-tolerance attitude towards the anti-competitive behavior of large technology companies." ”
In the end, the fines were far more than expected. The European Union finally imposed a fine of more than 1.8 billion euros on Apple, prohibiting Apple from imposing "anti-bootstrap clauses" on **stream** from March 4. The EU explained that this was a "penalty for non-monetary harm to consumers" and "had a deterrent effect".
Protecting local businesses in the name of competition?
In response to the European Commission's penalty decision, Apple replied with a lengthy statement that the Commission had failed to find any credible evidence of consumer harm and ignored the reality of a thriving, competitive and fast-growing market.
Apple focused its firepower on Spotify, pointing out that Spotify's European market share reached 56%. "Apple services help Spotify build, update, and share their apps with Apple users in 160 countries around the world" "The success is largely due to the Apple Store", but Spotify does not pay Apple anything for this.
Apple also said that since 2015, Spotify has met with the European Commission at least 65 times, and has repeatedly revised the scope of the charges over the past decade, and has been lacking reliable evidence. As a result, Apple sees this as "consolidating the dominance of a successful European company in the name of competition", suggesting that the European Commission is protecting homegrown companies. Spotify did not respond to this.
In response, the European Commission's competition chief said that the intervention in the Apple Store has nothing to do with Spotify in nature, and she once again stressed that the core of the problem of Apple's behavior is the exploitation of consumers. And she thinks that for those small streaming providers (e.g. Deezer, SoundCloud, etc.), they can now also compete because users can find them through the Apple Store and have full visibility into subscriptions.
Does the shift in regulatory focus to consumer protection in the antitrust investigation of Apple mark a shift in the EU's antitrust policy? At the press conference, the executive concluded that EU regulators "have an obligation to continuously develop their understanding of the legal basis" and to ensure relevance. In other words, she argues that exploitative practices are highly relevant to antitrust enforcement in emerging digital markets.
Spotify similarly supported the European Commission's approach in its response: "The European Commission puts consumers first. This is the basic concept of the free market – customers should know what options they have, and it should be up to the customer, not Apple, to decide what to buy, where, when, and how to buy. ”
What is the deterrent effect of the Digital Markets Act?
According to the EU statement, the penalty is based on the prohibition of abuse of dominant position in the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and the Agreement on the European Economic Area. Another high-profile antitrust law, the Digital Markets Law, will go into effect for Apple on March 6.
The Digital Markets Act is the world's first antitrust law specifically targeting platform technology giantsIt lists six companies, including Apple"Gatekeeper",It imposes a series of more detailed and stringent obligations on them, including data and information protection obligations, advertising information disclosure obligations, reporting information processing obligations, consumer rights protection obligations, etc. If the rules are violated, the tech giant could face fines of up to 10% of its gross global turnover.
Professor Chen Bing, director of the Competition Law Center of Nankai University, previously pointed out that the EU anti-monopoly law can also regulate the unfair trade practices of some leading enterprises in the field of digital economy, but these regulations are ex post facto. The ex-ante regulation of the "gatekeepers" under the Digital Markets Act can complement the ex post regulation of EU antitrust law.
Tech giants have made some high-profile "concessions" to adapt to the Digital Markets Act. For example, Apple opened a third-party app store for the first time this year, allowing European users to bypass the Apple store and install apps on the third-party app store or the web. However, these apps will be charged a "core technology fee", which is 0. per install per year for apps that are more than a million times**5 euros.
On March 1, a consortium of 34 developers, including Spotify and Epic Games, filed another complaint, arguing that Apple's open approach is still maintaining or even amplifying its market dominance, as few platforms can afford Apple's high core technology fees. They urged the European Commission to "take prompt, timely and decisive action against Apple to protect developers and benefit consumers, and to take immediate action when the Digital Markets Act applies".
Spotify said in a statement that it hopes to clearly and thoroughly address Apple's long-standing unfair practices in the future. The EU's response to the complaint will be "a litmus test of whether the Digital Markets Act will benefit European citizens and economies," the coalition of 34 developers wrote. "The outcome of Apple's appeal, as well as other tech giants' adjustments, will be closely watched.
sfc
Editor: Liu Xueying, intern: Liao Jiayi.
21 Jun recommended reading
Apple was fined 18400 million euros.
Glory Onslaught! Challenge Apple Samsung.
Ten years of car building dream shattered, Apple revealed the next focus!