La The word antitrust has gone from being a legal technicality The term "antitrust" has become a recurring theme in headlines, political debates, and even bar conversations when discussing tech giants like Apple, Google, or Meta. Behind this term lie regulations that attempt to curb abuses of power in digital markets, regulations that have now placed Apple in the crosshairs of multiple competition authorities. Antitrust and Apple: why the App Store is under scrutiny.
In recent years, Apple has become a textbook case study Regarding how European and national institutions want to control so-called "gatekeeper" platforms, Spain, the European Union, and the United States have launched investigations and imposed sanctions revolving around the same issue: how Apple manages its App Store, its commissions, its rules for developers, and its influence on prices and competition.
What is antitrust and why is everyone talking about it?
When we talk about antitrust, we are really talking about competition lawThe set of laws that aim to prevent companies from limiting competition in the market. In Europe, these rules are primarily implemented through the Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), while in Spain the reference is the Competition Defense Law (LDC).
El Article 101 TFEU and Article 1 of the LDC prohibit agreements between companies whose object or effect is to restrict competition, such as price-fixing or market-sharing agreements. For its part, the Article 102 TFEU and Article 2 of the LDC address the abuse of a dominant positionIt is not illegal to be very big, but it is illegal to use that power to stifle competitors or impose unfair conditions.
In the digital environment, these rules are now combined with the Digital Markets Act or DMA (Digital Markets Act), a specific EU regulation for large platforms considered “gatekeepers”. This law not only penalizes, but also imposes ex ante obligations to companies like Apple, Alphabet or Meta, forcing them to open their ecosystems in a much deeper way than we saw before.
The focus of all these rules is to prevent a company with a lot of power from gaining power. can unilaterally set the rules of the game for developers, competitors, and ultimately, for consumers themselves. And that's where the App Store and the iPhone ecosystem have become a regulatory battleground.
The CNMC and the investigation into Apple for its App Store in Spain
In Spain, the National Commission for Markets and Competition (CNMC) has been working for some time on the spotlight on how Apple manages its App StoreIn July 2024, it opened an official sanctioning procedure against Apple Distribution International Ltd. and Apple Inc., and in 2025 it decided to extend it based on new evidence.
The CNMC suspects that Apple may be abusing a dominant position in the app distribution market for branded devices, something that would fall under the prohibitions of Article 2 of the LDC and Article 102 TFEUThe key question is whether the company is imposing unfair business conditions on developers who rely on the App Store to reach iPhone and iPad users.
According to the initial complaint, Apple would impose unfair trading conditions in its relationships with developers who distribute apps through its store. This could include commissions, restrictions on the use of certain payment systems, or rules that affect how apps are promoted and ranked within the platform.
Spanish research has a maximum term of 24 months The investigation began in 2024 and is now underway, giving the CNMC until 2026 to complete the case and issue a ruling. The alleged infringement is classified as very serious and, if proven, Apple could face penalties of up to 10% of its global revenue of the year prior to the imposition of the fine.
From commissions to price controls: the expansion of the case
One year after opening the case, the CNMC has decided broaden the scope of the research Regarding Apple. It's no longer just a question of whether there's abuse of dominant position on the side of business conditions, but also of a possible agreement or practice that limits competition among developers.
The Spanish regulator is analyzing whether Apple would have imposed a mandatory price schedule or price list that developers would have to follow in order to sell their apps on the App Store. If confirmed, this conduct could fall under the prohibitions on direct or indirect price fixing of the Article 1 of the LDC and Article 101 TFEU, which regulate restrictive agreements between companies.
In practice, the suspicion is that this system would limit the freedom for developers to set the prices of their apps or in-app purchasesThis reduces the possibility of competing through discounts, promotions, or differentiated strategies. This would not only affect the profitability of many companies but could also result in fewer offers or less competitive prices for end users.
Apple, for its part, explains in its own public documentation that developers can choose from hundreds of predetermined price levels and request access to additional thresholds, with a limit that can reach $10.000. According to the company, this range guarantees a clear and consistent framework, but the CNMC (National Markets and Competition Commission) believes it could become a mechanism for forced price coordination if it is shown to restrict real competition between apps.
The supervisory body has made it clear that the The expansion of the case file does not prejudge the final outcome.It simply incorporates a new angle of analysis: in addition to the abuse of dominant position, it studies whether there is possible concerted conduct that directly affects pricing within the Apple store.
Apple's official position before the CNMC and the debate about the App Store
In this context, Apple defends itself by arguing that the The App Store offers a secure and profitable environment for both developers and users. Company spokespeople have emphasized that the goal since the store's launch more than 15 years ago has been twofold: to guarantee a reliable experience and protect users, while simultaneously providing a great business opportunity for companies that publish their applications.
The Cupertino firm emphasizes that, thanks to this model, Spanish developers of all types and sizes can compete on equal terms and reach more than a billion devices worldwide. Apple emphasizes that apps are reviewed according to security, privacy, and quality guidelines, and only those that meet these standards are added to the store.
Regarding the specific investigation by the CNMC, Apple has stated that will collaborate with the Spanish competition authority to clarify all aspects of the case and ensure the regulator also understands the company's concerns. The underlying message is that many of the controls interpreted as competitive restrictions are, for Apple, essential mechanisms to protect the user against fraud, malware or abusive practices by third parties.
This clash of perspectives – security and control versus openness and competition – It is neither new nor exclusive to Spainas they show the harsh words of a congressman Regarding the App Store's terms and conditions, this pattern has been repeated in virtually every legal and regulatory battle the company has faced over its app store, from the war with Epic Games to European cases and lawsuits in the United States.
Epic Games, Spotify and other landmark battles
Apple's dispute with the CNMC is part of a long list of conflicts on a global scale linked to the App Store. Among the most notable are the disputes with Epic Games, creator of Fortnite, and with Spotify, who have questioned the legitimacy of Apple's commission and restriction model.
Epic Games accused Apple of maintaining a de facto monopoly in app distribution On iOS, this is due both to the standard 30% commission and the long-standing ban on installing alternative app stores or third-party payment systems. When Epic tried to introduce its own payment system within Fortnite, Apple removed the game from the App Store, and the conflict ended up in court. The US Supreme Court will hear Apple's case.
In that case, the US judges stopped short of declaring the App Store a monopoly incompatible with competition law, but they did force Apple to to make certain rules more flexible, such as allowing developers to inform users of ways to pay outside the store with different conditions.
Spotify, for its part, has been one of the most critical voices in Europe, denouncing Apple acts as both judge and juryIt controls the platform through which it also distributes its own music streaming service, Apple Music, with conditions that could favor it against rivals that depend entirely on the App Store.
All this tension has led to a much more intense regulatory trend, with the European Digital Markets Act forcing open systems to alternative stores, to third-party payment methods and a more neutral framework for competition, at least within the EU.
European Commission investigations and sanctions against Apple
The European Commission has had Apple on the radar of competition policy for yearsespecially regarding its App Store and the digital services that depend on it. A significant part of these procedures has focused on music streaming and restrictions on "targeting," that is, the ability of developers to inform users about alternative purchasing methods outside of the Apple ecosystem.
In 2020, Brussels opened several investigations into the rules that mandated the use of Apple's in-app purchase (IAP) system and on the limitations in directing users to cheaper options outside the App Store. The cases included, among others, AT.40437 concerning music streaming services, and AT.40652 concerning e-book and audiobook applications.
On March 4, 2024, the European Commission imposed on Apple a fine of 1.800 million euros for abusing its dominant position in the distribution of music streaming apps on iOS and iPadOS. The core of the complaint was that Apple had limited the ability of Apple Music's rivals to adequately inform users about pricing and alternative payment methods.
Later, with the full entry into force of the WFD And given Apple's designation as a "gatekeeper" for its App Store, the Commission decided to close a broader investigation (AT.40716) because many of the questioned practices were now directly regulated by the new rules. Under the DMA, Apple can no longer force the use of its IAP system or impose monetary or non-monetary restrictions on guidance.
In the specific area of e-books and audiobooks, antitrust investigation AT.40652 was closed following the withdrawal of the complaint that initiated it. However, the Commission emphasized that Closing the file does not equate to a certification of good conductThe European technology sector, and in particular Apple's practices, continues to be closely monitored, both under the DMA and under classic competition rules.
The DMA, the “gatekeepers” and the new European regulatory front
The Digital Markets Act has ushered in a new era in the relationship between the EU and Big Tech. In March 2024, European institutions announced the first formal investigations under this regulation, focused on Apple, Alphabet (Google) and Meta.
The European Commission wants to check if the measures these companies have put in place to adapt to the WFD are adequate. They truly fulfill the objective of opening up ecosystems Or whether, on the contrary, they are cosmetic changes that maintain de facto control. In Apple's case, the investigation focuses particularly on two areas: the limitations on developers linking their apps to their websites and the difficulty of replacing default native applications with third-party alternatives.
According to officials such as Margrethe Vestager and Thierry Breton, Apple's compliance model might not conform to the spirit of the law, which requires that gatekeepers allow easy uninstallation of pre-installed apps, easy changing of default values, and the use of alternative app stores under reasonable conditions.
In addition, European authorities are also analyzing the conditions that Apple imposes for the use of alternative app stores In the EU: residual fees, technical requirements, security limits and other elements that could, in practice, discourage the use of these parallel channels to the official App Store.
The DMA foresees sanctions that can reach up to 10% of the infringing company's global revenueand even up to 20% in case of repeat offenses. In other words, the potential economic consequences for Apple and the other gatekeepers are very significant if the Commission concludes that they are hindering competition in European digital markets.
The Spanish case of Apple and Amazon: vertical agreements and multimillion-dollar fines
Alongside the App Store, the Spanish CNMC had already Apple hit on another front: its relationship with Amazon in the sale of electronic products. In July 2023, the regulator fined both companies a total of 194 million euros for a series of contractual clauses that, in the opinion of the CNMC, seriously restricted competition on Amazon.es.
Between 2018 and 2021, Apple and Amazon reportedly agreed to a set of conditions that led to a very significant portion of Apple product resellers It would be excluded from the marketplace. Sales became concentrated on Amazon itself and a very small group of Apple-authorized resellers, reducing competitive pressure and affecting the prices paid by consumers.
The CNMC identified, in particular, three types of clauses: exclusion clauses or “brand gating”, which limited which sellers could market Apple products on Amazon.es; advertising clauses, which restricted the possibility of Apple's competitors acquiring advertising space alongside the brand's products; and marketing limitation clauseswhich prevented Amazon from launching campaigns targeting Apple users to promote products from other brands.
The competition authority described these practices as restrictions “by object” in the sense of Article 101 TFEU and Article 1 of the LDC, that is, conduct which by its very nature has such a clear anti-competitive potential that it is not necessary to demonstrate detailed effects for them to be sanctionable, although in this case, in addition, very relevant impacts were proven.
The data analyzed showed that the number of sellers of Apple products on Amazon.es It was reduced by around 90%-100% compared to a scenario without these clauses. The result was that Amazon went from being a relatively marginal distributor of Apple products to becoming the main channel within its own marketplace, with a sharp increase in relative prices for Spanish consumers and a drop in cross-border sales from other countries in the European Economic Area.
Relevant markets, quotas and calculation of the penalty
To support its analysis, the CNMC focused on the definition of relevant markets affected by the Apple-Amazon agreement, both from the point of view of online intermediation and the manufacture and distribution of electronic products.
In the case of Amazon, the company was considered to operate primarily as a two-sided online marketplace, which connects consumers with sellers. The CNMC defined the relevant market as the provision of intermediation services in online marketplaces to third-party sellers, excluding the consumer side and other sales channels such as physical stores, own websites or social networks, understanding that they are not replaceable from the sellers' perspective.
The data revealed that Amazon held a share of between 70% and 80% of the revenue from basic intermediation services, which rose to the range of 80%-90% if additional services are included, and between 60% and 70% in terms of third-party sales volume in 2021. That is, a very clear dominance of the marketplace channel in Spain.
In the case of Apple, the CNMC analyzed its presence in the manufacturing and sale of electronic productswholesale and retail distribution. Although he didn't provide a more detailed breakdown by product category, he did highlight that Apple had fees greater than 30% in the market for manufacturing and selling electronic devices in the EEA, including smartphones, tablets and smartwatches.
These figures were important because, by exceeding the 30% threshold, The Block Exemption Regulation for Vertical Agreements (BVA) was not applicablewhich acts as a “safe harbor” for agreements between companies with smaller market shares. Thus, both the nature of the clauses and the market shares pointed to a restriction of competition that was not exempt, reinforcing the CNMC's position to impose sanctions.
Regarding the calculation of the fines, the Spanish authority considered the conduct as a single and continuous infringement from October 2018 until at least February 2023. The penalty could reach up to 5% of the global turnover of the companies involved, and the specific percentage was adjusted according to the severity, duration, geographical scope, effects and the need to ensure a sufficient deterrent effect.
Consequences for developers, users, and the future of digital markets
This whole network of files, sanctions, investigations and new regulations is not just a political or media battle with Apple: It has a real impact on how digital services are developed and consumed. in Spain and in Europe.
For developers, the decisions of the CNMC and the European Commission can translate into more room to maneuver in setting prices, choosing payment systems and negotiate terms with the major platforms. Limiting Apple's ability to impose rigid pricing schedules or commissions will increase competition among similar apps, which often drives innovation and lower prices.
For users, the opening of the App Store and the strict implementation of the DMA may mean More options to choose from, better deals and a greater variety of services. This includes the ability to install apps from alternative stores, easily change default apps, or take advantage of promotions that were previously unavailable under Apple's rules.
However, there are also risks and doubts: Apple insists that Relaxing certain controls can open the door to security problemsFraud or loss of quality in applications. The major regulatory challenge is finding the balance between a secure ecosystem and a competitive market where tech giants cannot block their rivals.
Today, Apple remains under scrutiny on several frontsThe CNMC (National Markets and Competition Commission) must resolve the case concerning its App Store in Spain; Brussels continues its DMA (Disclosure Agreement) and competition investigations; and in the United States, lawsuits are being processed related to the alleged iPhone monopoly and control of its ecosystem. The decisions in these cases will significantly shape the rules of the game in the digital economy for years to come.
The picture that emerges is that of an Apple that, after years of de facto setting the rules of its walled garden, has to adapt to a scenario in which regulators are demanding open doors and windows so that competition can flourish. How this struggle between private innovation and public control plays out will determine how developers, users, and competitors interact with the App Store and the other services that revolve around the iPhone.
