The European Commission may have given a cautious thumbs-up to Apple’s revised app store terms in the EU, but Epic Games is far from satisfied. The maker of Fortnite and operator of one of the world’s largest game marketplaces insists that Apple’s latest adjustments still fall short of the requirements set by the Digital Markets Act (DMA). This ongoing feud, which has already reshaped how apps are distributed and paid for in Europe, shows no signs of cooling down.
Apple’s New EU App Store Rules: A Step Forward or a Sidestep?
In response to mounting regulatory pressure, Apple recently unveiled a fresh set of business terms for developers operating within the European Union. These changes were designed to address earlier findings from the European Commission, which had flagged issues with Apple’s ‘steering’ provisions—rules that prevented developers from directing users to alternative payment methods outside of Apple’s own system. The Commission had also expressed preliminary concerns about how Apple was facilitating alternative app marketplaces on iOS.
Apple’s revised framework aims to offer more flexibility. Developers can now include external links to payment options, and third-party app stores are permitted on iPhones and iPads in the EU. However, Apple has attached strings: a new fee structure, a ‘core technology fee’ for apps that exceed a certain install threshold, and a notarization process for apps distributed outside the App Store. These conditions, according to Apple, are necessary to maintain security and privacy standards while complying with the DMA.
What the European Commission Says
The European Commission, which is tasked with enforcing the DMA, has responded with cautious optimism. A spokesperson told the Irish Independent that the Commission ‘welcomes Apple’s changes to their business terms, which follow a close dialogue between the Commission and Apple after the Commission issued a non-compliance decision related to Apple’s steering terms as well as preliminary findings related to alternative app marketplaces.’
The Commission’s stance suggests that Apple has made enough progress to avoid immediate penalties, at least for now. But this is not a final verdict—the Commission will continue to monitor how these new rules are implemented in practice. The door remains open for further action if the changes prove insufficient in the eyes of regulators.
Epic Games’ Objections: Why the New Rules Still ‘Violate’ the DMA
Epic Games, which has been locked in a bitter legal battle with Apple since 2020, sees things very differently. In a statement, the company argued that Apple’s new terms are ‘a sham’ and that they ‘still violate the Digital Markets Act in multiple ways.’ Epic’s primary grievances center on three key areas: the fee structure, the notarization process, and the overall design of the alternative app store experience.
The Core Technology Fee: A Barrier to Competition
One of the most contentious points is the ‘core technology fee’ (CTF). Under Apple’s new rules, any app that exceeds one million first annual installs per year in the EU must pay €0.50 per install, regardless of whether the app is distributed through the App Store or an alternative marketplace. This fee applies to all apps, including free ones, and it has drawn sharp criticism from Epic and other developers.
Epic argues that the CTF is designed to undermine the economic viability of alternative app stores. For a popular game like Fortnite, which has millions of users, the fee could quickly become astronomical. This, Epic contends, effectively forces developers to stay within Apple’s own ecosystem, where the commission is lower but the control is tighter. In Epic’s view, this is a clear violation of the DMA’s requirement that gatekeepers must not impose unfair conditions on business users.
Notarization and Security Checks: A Hidden Control Mechanism
Another sticking point is Apple’s notarization process. While Apple has framed this as a security measure to protect users from malware, Epic sees it as a backdoor way to maintain control over what apps can be installed on iOS devices. The notarization process involves a review of the app by Apple, and Apple retains the right to block apps that it deems unsafe or that violate its guidelines.
Epic argues that this process is not transparent and that it gives Apple the power to veto apps that might compete with its own services. For example, an alternative app store that offers a game streaming service could be blocked if Apple decides it conflicts with its own policies. This, Epic says, is antithetical to the DMA’s goal of opening up the iOS ecosystem to genuine competition.
The User Experience: Designed to Deter
Epic also takes issue with the user experience of installing apps from alternative marketplaces. Apple has implemented a series of warning screens and pop-ups that users must navigate before they can download an app from a third-party store. These warnings emphasize the potential risks of installing apps outside the App Store, which Epic believes is a deliberate attempt to scare users away from alternative distribution channels.
In Epic’s view, these warnings are not about user safety—they are about preserving Apple’s monopoly. By making the alternative process more cumbersome and intimidating, Apple is effectively discouraging users from exploring options beyond its own store. This, Epic argues, is a violation of the DMA’s ‘anti-circumvention’ provisions, which prohibit gatekeepers from undermining the effectiveness of compliance measures.
The Broader Implications for Developers and Consumers
This dispute is not just a corporate spat between two tech giants. It has far-reaching consequences for app developers of all sizes and for millions of consumers across the EU. The outcome of this battle will shape the future of mobile app distribution, not just in Europe but potentially around the world.
For Developers: More Choices, But at What Cost?
On the surface, Apple’s new rules appear to give developers more freedom. They can now use alternative payment processors, link to external websites, and distribute their apps through third-party stores. However, the practical reality is more complicated. The CTF, in particular, could be a dealbreaker for many developers, especially those with large user bases.
Consider a small indie developer who has a hit app with two million downloads. Under the new rules, they would owe Apple €500,000 per year in CTF fees—a sum that could easily exceed their revenue, especially if the app is free or ad-supported. This could force developers to either raise prices, limit their app’s reach, or abandon the EU market altogether. In this sense, Apple’s ‘compliance’ may actually reduce consumer choice, which is the opposite of what the DMA intends.
For Consumers: A Confusing and Potentially Risky Experience
Consumers, meanwhile, are caught in the crossfire. On one hand, they may benefit from lower prices and more diverse apps if alternative stores gain traction. On the other hand, the security warnings and the complexity of installing apps from unknown sources could lead to confusion and potentially expose less tech-savvy users to security risks.
Apple has long argued that its walled-garden approach is what makes iOS so secure. By allowing third-party stores, the company warns, users could be exposed to malware and scams. While this argument is self-serving, it is not without merit. The EU’s decision to force Apple to open up its ecosystem is a bold experiment, and the outcome is far from certain.
What’s Next? The Road Ahead for the DMA and Apple
The European Commission has not yet made a final determination on whether Apple’s new rules are fully compliant with the DMA. The Commission has said it will continue to assess the implementation and may take further action if necessary. This means that Epic Games and other critics still have a chance to influence the outcome through formal complaints and legal challenges.
Potential Legal Battles and Fines
If the Commission ultimately finds that Apple is still in violation, the company could face significant fines—up to 10% of its global annual turnover, which would be billions of euros. For a company of Apple’s size, such a penalty would be a serious blow, both financially and reputationally. Moreover, the Commission could impose ‘periodic penalty payments’ for each day of non-compliance, which would add even more pressure.
Epic Games is also likely to pursue its own legal remedies. The company has already won a partial victory in the US courts, where a judge ruled that Apple must allow external payment links. However, that ruling has been stayed pending appeal, and the situation in the EU is separate. Epic has shown a willingness to fight Apple in multiple jurisdictions, and this new dispute is likely to escalate.
The Role of Other Developers and Industry Groups
Epic is not alone in its criticism. Other major developers, including Spotify and Deezer, have also voiced concerns about Apple’s compliance efforts. These companies have formed coalitions and have been lobbying the EU to take a harder line against Apple. Their collective pressure could push the Commission to be more stringent in its enforcement.
Industry groups, such as the Coalition for App Fairness, have also been vocal. They argue that Apple’s new rules are a ‘classic example of malicious compliance’—a way of technically meeting the letter of the law while undermining its spirit. These groups are calling for the Commission to reject Apple’s proposals and to mandate a more genuinely open system.
Conclusion: A Battle That’s Far From Over
The clash between Epic Games and Apple over the EU’s new app store rules is a defining moment for the Digital Markets Act. While the European Commission has expressed cautious approval of Apple’s changes, Epic’s strong objections highlight the deep-seated tensions that remain. The core question is whether Apple’s new terms truly open up the iOS ecosystem or merely create an illusion of compliance while preserving its dominance.
For now, the ball is in the Commission’s court. It must decide whether to accept Apple’s assurances or to dig deeper into the practical effects of these rules. The outcome will have profound implications for app developers, consumers, and the future of digital markets in Europe and beyond. One thing is certain: this story is far from over, and the next chapters will be watched closely by the entire tech industry.
