Every time you think that Apple has reached the proverbial nadir in terms of global antitrust investigations, another emerges akin to a Russian babushka doll.
Switzerland's antitrust authority is now investigating Apple Pay over NFC payments
Third-party entities are generally free to access the NFC-based contactless payment technology on Android devices. However, Apple Pay only began to allow a relatively unencumbered access to its NFC tech across the EU in 2024 after the European Commission brought significant pressure to bear on the Cupertino giant.
Moreover, Apple has been granting Switzerland-based third-party payment service providers access to its NFC tech since at least late 2024.
Now, however, Switzerland, which is not part of the EU, has opened an antitrust investigation against Apple Pay via its Secretariat of the Swiss Competition Commission. The preliminary investigation is seeking answers to the following questions:
- Whether "other providers of mobile payment apps can effectively compete with Apple Pay for contactless payments with iOS devices in shops."
- "Whether the terms and conditions for granting access – which differ from those applicable in the EEA – comply with Swiss antitrust law."
Apple has won a major reprieve in the Epic case
Apple was recently compelled by a court in the Epic case to allow access to external payment methods and to enable the return of Epic's Fortnite app. A 2021 injunction had also called upon Apple to to remove anti-steering barriers for third-party businesses, which the tech giant partially ignored.
On April 30, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers found Apple guilty of willful violation of the injunction and, consequently, barred it from collecting any commission on all purchases made outside of the App Store.
Apple predictably appealed the ruling. Now, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has agreed with the spirit of Judge Gonzalez's order, but found that the penalty imposed on Apple "went overboard in some respects," going on to note that "the commission prohibition is not an appropriately cabined civil contempt sanction."
"Accordingly, the April 30 Order is reversed in relevant part and remanded to the district court. We otherwise affirm the April 30 Order."
Nonetheless, Apple is not in the clear just yet. The court has asked the tech giant to sit down with Epic and hash out an appropriate commission rate for external payments. Alternatively, the determination will be made by a competent court.
Critically, Apple still can't collect commissions on ex-App Store payments until the determination has been finalized.
Do note, however, that Epic appears to be in no mood to compromise, with the company's CEO, Tim Sweeney, recently noting in an interview that he "can't imagine any justification for a percentage of developer revenue being assessed here."
This situation has created a legal precedent, where consumers in other markets are also asking for similar privileges. For instance, in Australia, Epic recently asked the court to allow its apps to be sideloaded onto Apple devices without any associated commission.
Apple's other antitrust headaches
Apple was recently classified as a "gatekeeper" for surpassing the minimum user thresholds delineated within the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA) and for retaining a monopoly over its App Store.
Do note that the EU's "gatekeeper" designation applies to entities that possess enough market dominance and heft to block competition.
The designation requires an expansive qualifying criteria:
- A market capitalization of 75 billion euros ($79 billion) or EU-derived revenues of at least 7.5 billion euros in each of the last 3 business years.
- 45 million monthly active end users and over 10,000 yearly active business users in the last financial year.
- The candidate entity fulfilled the second criterion in each of the last 3 financial years.
The EU has also bestowed a gatekeeper status on Apple's iOS and iPadOS. Under the ensuing remedies, the EU has forced Apple to allow third-party app stores on its devices.
Also, under concerted pressure, Apple modified the terms for app developers in the EU in March 2024, allowing those who enrolled in the modified program to pay a lower percentage of their overall app-derived revenue to Apple.
What's more, as per DMA rules, an entity must inform the EU as soon as it meets the qualifying criteria for a "gatekeeper" designation. Accordingly, as per a recent report from Reuters, Apple has informed the EU that its Maps and Ads services have hit the required threshold for a formal determination.
The EU now has 45 days to decide whether to impose additional antitrust remedial measures on these two services. If the designation status is approved, Apple will have 6 months to take appropriate antitrust remedial measures.
Apple is also on the hook for hundreds of millions of dollars in an ongoing antitrust case in a Dutch court, where two Dutch consumer foundations - Right to Consumer Justice and App Store Claims - have accused the tech giant of abusing its dominant position to charge third-party app developers excessive fees, to the tune of 30 percent.
Separately, Poland's anti-monopoly watchdog, the UOKiK, has now initiated a formal investigation against Apple for supposedly subverting its own ATT rules to deliver personalized ads on its bespoke platforms, including the App Store.
Under the ATT framework, Apple attaches an anonymized identifier - bereft of personal details - to each device. Third-party app developers can then seek consent from users to track their activity using this identifier.
However, the Polish antitrust watchdog recently contended that Apple does not seek such consent under the ATT framework from users for its own apps and platforms. The contention is quite simple: if Apple's bespoke apps and platforms, including the App Store, are not subject to the ATT framework, the Cupertino giant can theoretically use the anonymized identifier to display personalized ads to users, that too without the hassle of seeking outright consent.
Finally, a group of around 55 Chinese consumers has now filed a formal antitrust complaint against Apple with China's market regulator, arguing that Apple maintains a monopoly over app distributions and payment methods in China while allowing off-App Store payments as well as third-party app stores in other markets.
About the author: Writing is my one incontrovertible passion. Over the past six years, he has authored over 2,200 distinct articles on financial and tech-related topics, spanning nearly 1 million words. And he has been a member of Wcctech mobile team since 2025. As an alumnus of the University of Toronto, Rotman Commerce Program, I bring nuance, in-depth knowledge, and a unique perspective to every topic that I cover. When I'm not writing, I'm traveling the world, exploring hidden confectionaries and restaurants as an aspiring food connoisseur.
Follow Wccftech on Google to get more of our news coverage in your feeds.
