This European Commission assessment sharpens the focus on how App Store rules affect music streaming providers. Led by Danish commissioner Margrethe Vestager, the competition service targets practices it believes constitute unfair trade terms under the EU treaty. The team is examining whether Apple’s in-app payment obligations and related disclosures constrain music streaming app developers and influence how consumers subscribe to services through iPhones and iPads.
Vestager’s investigators are particularly concerned that the anti routing requirements required by Apple to inform users about alternative, lower price subscription options are not necessary or proportionate to simply offering an App Store. Preliminary analysis suggests these obligations may restrict competition and could raise prices for users of music streaming services on Apple devices. They argue the measures limit consumer choice and hinder developers from presenting the best subscription options.
According to the Brussels preliminary view, these practices may breach Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, which prohibits the abuse of a dominant market position. If the commission finds sufficient evidence, it could impose a fine of as much as 10 percent of Apple’s worldwide annual turnover. This development follows a prior statement of objection that Apple was found to be abusing its dominant position by requiring IAP for payments and restricting app developers from notifying iPhone and iPad users about competing music subscription services via in-app offers.
cheaper alternatives
The Brussels document published on Tuesday clarifies that the commission is no longer ruling on the legality of the IAP obligation within this antitrust probe. Instead it concentrates on the contractual restrictions Apple places on developers that prevent them from informing users about lower price music subscription options outside the app and from guiding them toward these alternatives. Since mid 2020, the commission has been formalizing its scrutiny of the company’s app distribution rules, and a formal objection followed in 2021, with Apple responding later that year.
The latest filing replaces the initial objection letter and outlines how affected parties can submit their responses. Buyers and developers may review the commission’s investigation dossier, provide written observations, and request an oral hearing with Commission representatives and national competition authorities. A new statement of objection may be issued, but it will not prematurely determine the investigation’s outcome. The overall timeline remains open, reflecting the case complexity, the level of company cooperation, and the rights of defense exercised by involved parties.
These actions illustrate how the European Commission approaches cases where large platforms are suspected of using market power to shape app ecosystems. The process involves formal procedures, opportunity to respond in writing, and potential hearings, all designed to ensure a fair and transparent examination. For developers, the proceedings mean continued scrutiny and the chance to present evidence about how app distribution rules affect pricing and consumer access. For consumers, the outcome could influence the availability of alternative pricing structures and the clarity of information presented within apps on Apple devices.
The investigation underscores the Commission’s broader interest in ensuring that dominant platforms do not distort competition in digital markets. It also highlights tensions between platform owners and developers over transparency, pricing, and the ability to reach customers efficiently. As the inquiry proceeds, both sides may adjust their strategies in response to new submissions and potential regulatory decisions. The case remains a key example of how antitrust authorities monitor the digital economy and seek to preserve consumer welfare by fostering competition and clear information about pricing opportunities.