“CCI probe accuses Apple of ‘abuse’ in its market dominance, impacting app developers.” This report delves into the results of CCI’s probe that indicate that Apple is misusing its control in the marketplace to enforce anticompetitive conditions upon app developers, and potentially on consumers as well.
The CCI has found Apple operations violate Section 3(4) and Section 4 of the Competition Act, 2002 on which its probe was conducted by its investigative arm. The inquiry found that Apple was making anti-competitive pacts with all app developers, which led to an AAEC. Instead, the App Store has grown into an “oppressor” for app developers; they do not have a choice but to agree to onerous and often unreasonable terms dictated by Apple.
At the heart of the investigation is Apple’s policy that forces app developers to use its own billing and payment system. The combination of this and the introduction of “discriminative” commission structures is especially targeting smaller developers. Apple can take a cut as high as 30% of digital payments made through its App Store, but is exempt from the same fees for apps like Apple Music and Apple Arcade. The pay-to-play system has been regarded as a move that is downright anti-competitive, a truly absurd way to put third-party devs at an even greater disadvantage. Apple’s developer program license agreement (DPLA) and App Store review rules also state that app developers are prohibited from promoting alternative payment methods inside its apps. Deutsche concluded that this restriction prevents alternative payment processors from entering the iOS market, entrenching Apple and default apps while restricting consumer choice.
The probe also notes that they feel Apple’s policies discourage innovation and restrict market growth. These restrictive practices are ways that Apple is engaging in potential antitrust activities by walling off the iOS ecosystem from independent app stores and payment processors, and blocking new entrants. The investigation states, “There is no way for developers to realistically pass off the function of free distribution on iOS devices to any competitive alternative.” The report reinforces this idea, explaining that such control leads to a monopoly stifling developers from blossoming (duh) and innovation being held back with the only real losers here being the end users since eh competition is stifled. This also points out the damages that it causes on other payment processors (who face restrictions to offer better services) and therefore the lack of diversity in options consumers can pay with.
The development could mean a huge penalty for Apple, including fines that run into hundreds of crores or even thousands of crores and an order to desist from such activities. The regulator also appears to be taking a particularly tough line in its efforts to ensure fair competition, following earlier actions CCI took against Google India for abusing the dominance of its search engine named Google.
After these accusations, Apple has defended its App Store policies by saying that it believes the company’s in-app purchase (IAP) system, which is itself a part of the App Store also, is “crucial to maintaining a safe and trusted environment” for users and developers. From the sounds of it, though, it is unlikely that this defense will fly based on the reported conclusions reached by the CCI — which have held Google to be in violation for abusing its power in a way that affected both consumers and competition.
The CCI investigation underlines vital concerns about market fairness and the role of tech goliaths as well measures that they ought to be subjected to. Apple Antitrust Investigation, Apple has been called out for anticompetitive behavior in regards to its app distribution market power and the restrictive terms it has dictated on app developers, resulting in significant harm to individual app developers, consumers and competition within the broader digital economy. An investigation of this standpoint lays the groundwork for further rulings of market dominance in other cases in India and is also indicative of the increasing imperative to regulate power asymmetry stemming from tech giants controlling digital ecosystems.
Author Bio
