Epic Games Accuses Apple of Circumventing Antitrust Deal in Brazil
Apple's app distribution rules face new antitrust scrutiny in Brazil following Epic's complaint.
1Allegations of antitrust non-compliance
Epic Games filed a petition with Brazil's antitrust authority CADE, accusing Apple of violating its App Store antitrust agreement obligations through restrictive interpretations. Apple has until Monday to respond. Two months ago, Apple announced it would allow Brazilian developers to distribute apps through alternative marketplaces, marking a significant policy shift in the region.
2Background of multi-year investigation
This change came as part of resolving a years-long antitrust investigation that began after Latin American e-commerce giant MercadoLibre challenged Apple's App Store rules. Under the new terms, Brazilian developers can distribute iOS apps through alternative stores and offer payment methods outside Apple's IAP system, potentially reducing Apple's control over the app ecosystem.
3New commission structure draws criticism
Apple introduced a new fee structure including a 5% Core Technology Commission on digital goods sold through apps distributed outside the App Store. However, Epic claims Apple created 'structural, technical and access barriers' that undermine practical implementation of alternative app distribution, maintaining Apple's dominant position in the market.
4iPadOS coverage and warning screens
Epic argues Brazil's new rules only apply to iOS apps while Apple's agreement with CADE 'clearly covers iPadOS.' The company also objects to what it calls 'scare screens' discouraging users from installing apps outside the App Store, and the current nine-step installation process, comparing it unfavorably to Europe's six-step process.
5European experience and user impact
According to reports, Epic highlighted that when Apple reduced Europe's installation process from 15 to 6 steps, 'download abandonment rates dropped from 65% to 25%.' This data demonstrates how streamlined user experiences can significantly affect adoption rates of alternative distribution methods.
6Concerns over excessive reporting
Epic alleges Apple's reporting requirements 'far exceed what's necessary to calculate fees,' enabling the company 'to monitor competitors' business models.' Such practices could potentially give Apple unfair competitive advantages in the digital marketplace, raising concerns about anti-competitive behavior.
7Growing global regulatory pressure
Apple faces increasing antitrust scrutiny worldwide, with investigations in the US, EU, South Korea, and now Brazil. The company's App Store policies and 15-30% commission rates have drawn regulatory attention globally. This case represents part of a broader movement challenging tech giants' market power and control over digital ecosystems.
8Industry implications and future outlook
The Brazil case underscores ongoing global efforts to create fairer competition in app ecosystems. Apple's response and CADE's decision could shape the future of alternative app distribution models not just in Brazil but worldwide. The outcome may set precedents influencing regulatory approaches in other jurisdictions dealing with similar platform governance issues.