Apple’s ongoing efforts to reconcile its business model with the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) have met with a sharp rebuff from a broad coalition of industry stakeholders. In an open letter addressed to the European Commission, 18 organizations—including the Coalition for App Fairness (CAF) and the European Games Developer Federation (EGDF)—assert that the revised App Store terms announced by the tech giant on August 18, 2024, continue to circumvent the fundamental requirements of EU law. The signatories argue that Apple’s latest proposals, characterized by new fee structures and "steering" restrictions, represent a persistent attempt to maintain its gatekeeper dominance while appearing to comply with regulatory mandates.
The conflict centers on how Apple manages third-party developers’ ability to communicate with their own customers and process payments outside of the proprietary App Store ecosystem. While Apple claims its revised terms provide developers with more flexibility, the coalition argues these changes are "maliciously compliant" at best and overtly illegal at worst. The fallout from this dispute carries significant weight, as it tests the enforcement capabilities of the DMA, a landmark piece of legislation designed to ensure fair and open digital markets across the European Union.
The Core of the Dispute: Steering Fees and the Core Technology Commission
At the heart of the open letter is a challenge to Apple’s newly introduced financial requirements for developers operating within the EU. The DMA, specifically Article 5(4), stipulates that gatekeepers must allow developers to "steer" consumers to offers outside the gatekeeper’s platform free of charge. However, Apple’s revised terms include a 15% fee on transactions made by users who were directed to external payment systems through an app.
The coalition argues that this 15% "steering fee" is a direct violation of the DMA’s mandate for "free of charge" redirection. This specific point of contention follows a precedent set in early 2025, when the European Commission fined Apple approximately $570 million (€500 million) for non-compliance regarding anti-steering practices. The signatories of the letter contend that by simply rebranding its commission as a steering fee, Apple is attempting to bypass the spirit of the Commission’s previous rulings.
Furthermore, the letter highlights the "Core Technology Commission" (CTC), a 5% fee charged on transactions for apps distributed through alternative channels. Apple justifies this fee as a cost for the use of its proprietary intellectual property and developer tools. The coalition, however, views the CTC as a strategic disincentive. By imposing a 5% tax on apps that choose to bypass the App Store, Apple effectively replaces the traditional 30% "Apple Tax" with a multi-layered fee structure that makes third-party distribution economically unviable for many developers. The letter points out a stark contrast with other major operating systems, noting that platforms like Windows and Linux do not charge developers fees for self-distribution or for directing users to external websites.
A Growing Alliance Against Gatekeeper Control
The diversity and scale of the organizations signing the letter underscore the widespread industry dissatisfaction with Apple’s policies. The Coalition for App Fairness represents some of the most prominent names in the digital economy, including Epic Games, Match Group (the parent company of Tinder), and Spotify. These companies have been at the forefront of the global legal battle against mobile platform monopolies for years.
Joining them is the European Games Developer Federation (EGDF), an organization that represents 27 national trade bodies and more than 2,500 game development studios across Europe. For the gaming industry, which relies heavily on microtransactions and in-app purchases, Apple’s fee structures are particularly impactful. The EGDF argues that the current terms stifle innovation and prevent smaller studios from achieving profitability by siphoning off a significant portion of their revenue before they can reinvest in new projects.
The 18 signatories collectively argue that Apple’s strategy is designed to create a "friction-filled" environment for any developer attempting to move away from the App Store. By complicating the user experience with warnings and imposing new financial burdens, Apple allegedly ensures that the vast majority of developers and consumers remain locked within its ecosystem.
Chronology of Regulatory Friction and Legal Challenges
The current standoff is the latest chapter in a long history of regulatory and legal challenges involving Apple’s App Store. To understand the gravity of the open letter, it is necessary to look at the timeline of events leading up to this moment:
- September 2020: The Coalition for App Fairness is formed, led by Epic Games and Spotify, to advocate for platform transparency and fair competition.
- December 2022: The European Union officially adopts the Digital Markets Act (DMA), identifying "gatekeepers" in the digital space who must adhere to strict interoperability and fairness standards.
- March 2024: The DMA comes into full force. Apple announces its initial compliance plan, which is immediately met with criticism from developers for its complexity and the introduction of the Core Technology Fee.
- April 2025: (As cited in the coalition’s correspondence) The European Commission issues a landmark $570 million fine against Apple, concluding that its anti-steering rules in the music streaming market were illegal under EU competition law.
- August 18, 2024: Apple reveals revised EU App Store terms, attempting to address the Commission’s findings by adjusting its fee percentages and steering policies.
- Present: The CAF, EGDF, and 16 other organizations issue their open letter, declaring the revised terms a failure and calling for formal intervention.
This timeline illustrates a cycle of regulation, corporate pivot, and subsequent industry pushback. The recurring theme is the definition of "compliance," with Apple interpreting the law narrowly and the industry advocating for a more transformative opening of the iOS platform.
Demanding Clarity from the European Commission
A significant portion of the coalition’s letter is directed not at Apple, but at the European Commission itself. The CAF and its partners expressed concern over what they describe as "informal public statements" from Commission officials that seemed to signal a tentative acceptance of Apple’s revised terms.
The letter argues that these informal signals create a vacuum of legal certainty. Without a formal, reasoned conclusion from the EC, businesses are left in a state of limbo, unable to determine if Apple’s practices are legally sound or if they will be subject to further retroactive penalties. The signatories are calling for a formal consultation process where affected parties—the developers themselves—can provide evidence on how these terms affect their business models.
"The lack of a formal decision prevents the industry from moving forward," the letter states. "We need the Commission to clarify whether the findings of April 2025 have been resolved or if Apple remains in breach of the law."
Global Context: Parallel Battles in the US and UK
The dispute in the European Union does not exist in a vacuum. Apple is facing similar pressures globally, which the open letter highlights to demonstrate a pattern of behavior. In the United States, Apple has attempted to implement similar fee structures for external payments following the Epic v. Apple ruling. However, a US court order currently bars Apple from prohibiting developers from including links to external purchase mechanisms. Despite Apple’s attempts to appeal and pause this injunction, the Supreme Court declined to intervene, leaving the company in a precarious legal position domestically.
Furthermore, Apple is currently embroiled in a significant legal battle in the United Kingdom. Last week, reports surfaced that the company is facing a £2 billion ($2.6 billion) collective legal claim on behalf of UK app developers. This claim centers on Apple’s App Tracking Transparency (ATT) policy, which developers argue was used to unfairly disadvantage competitors while exempting Apple’s own advertising services from the same rigorous standards.
These parallel cases suggest that the "Apple Tax" and the company’s control over its ecosystem are under the most intense scrutiny in the company’s history. Regulators in multiple jurisdictions are increasingly viewing the mobile app market as a public utility that requires oversight rather than a private garden where the platform owner has absolute discretion.
Fact-Based Analysis of Market Implications
If Apple’s revised terms are allowed to stand, the implications for the European digital economy could be profound. Economically, the 15% steering fee and the 5% Core Technology Commission act as a "floor" for the cost of doing business on iOS. For high-volume, low-margin businesses, such as digital news subscriptions or small-scale indie games, these fees can represent the difference between sustainability and bankruptcy.
From a competitive standpoint, the coalition argues that Apple’s terms prevent the emergence of a true secondary market for app distribution. If it is more expensive and technically difficult to distribute an app via an alternative store than through the official App Store, developers will naturally gravitate toward the status quo. This maintains Apple’s data monopoly, as the company retains visibility into all transactions and user interactions within its ecosystem.
The DMA was designed to break this cycle by encouraging "contestability." However, if a gatekeeper can charge for the privilege of a developer leaving its platform, the "contestability" remains theoretical rather than practical. The outcome of this specific dispute will likely set the tone for how the DMA is enforced against other tech giants, including Google, Meta, and Amazon.
Conclusion and Future Outlook
The open letter from the Coalition for App Fairness and the European Games Developer Federation serves as a formal declaration that the industry will not accept incremental or "cosmetic" changes to the App Store’s business model. By framing the 15% steering fee as a direct violation of Article 5(4) and criticizing the Core Technology Commission as a barrier to entry, the signatories have put the ball back in the European Commission’s court.
The Commission now faces a pivotal choice: it can accept Apple’s revisions and risk appearing toothless in the face of one of the world’s most powerful corporations, or it can take the formal steps requested by the coalition to demand a more radical restructuring of how iOS operates in Europe. As the legal battles in the US and UK continue to escalate, the European Union remains the primary laboratory for digital regulation. The resolution of this conflict will determine whether the Digital Markets Act truly marks the end of the "walled garden" era or simply the beginning of a more complex and expensive version of it.
About the Author
