Apple filed a formal response to the UK Competition and Markets Authority on July 29, pushing back against proposed rules that would require it to let developers direct users to payment options outside the App Store. The company argues the changes would give regulators a “highly intrusive” role in how it runs its business.
Reuters reported on Apple’s submission to the CMA consultation in which the company argued the proposal goes beyond what the regulator claims: “Under the [consultation], the CMA would not only regulate Apple’s prices, but also restrict the products and services for which Apple can charge a commission,” the company said. Apple maintains there is no evidence that allowing developers to steer users to external purchases would result in savings for customers, and raised safety concerns about users leaving what it describes as its “trusted payment infrastructure.”
What the CMA is actually proposing
The CMA wants Apple and Google to allow developers to link out to alternative payment options from within their apps. UK developers currently cannot do this, even though the practice is permitted under current US App Store rules and EU App Store rules. The CMA has said Apple can still charge a fee when developers steer users externally, but that fee must be fair, reasonable, and below existing App Store commissions, so that developers can pass savings on to customers or reinvest them.
Both Apple and Google were designated with strategic market status in the UK last October, after the CMA concluded the two companies hold a duopoly over mobile platforms. That designation is not a finding of wrongdoing, but it gives the CMA new powers to impose specific requirements aimed at opening up competition. The CMA is still assessing feedback before making a final decision.
Apple’s £46.5 billion argument
Apple’s submission cited the scale of its UK App Store business as context: the App Store facilitated over £46.5 billion in UK billings and sales in 2025, with commissions accounting for less than 3.5 percent of the total. The implicit argument is that the existing system is already competitive and that commissions are a small fraction of a large, healthy market. Critics of that framing would note that a low headline percentage can still represent a significant burden when applied to App Store fees on specific categories of developers.
The CMA rejected Apple’s characterization of the proposal as price regulation. “Our consultation proposes principles to ensure that the fees Apple and Google charge for steering are fair and reasonable, not to directly set prices,” a CMA spokesperson told Reuters.
Why the UK rules are designed differently
The UK’s approach is constructed to close loopholes Apple has used in the US and EU. In both markets, Apple has faced accusations of technical compliance that negates any real benefit to developers, by imposing steering fees or conditions that make external payment links economically unviable. The scare screen tactics Apple deployed for EU apps illustrate exactly the kind of move the CMA’s “fair and reasonable” standard is designed to prevent. The CMA’s framework ties any permitted fee to a standard that sits below current commission levels, removing the margin Apple has used elsewhere to make steering practically pointless.
Apple said it would continue to “make our concerns clear” to the CMA. The same argument, that opening the App Store undermines safety and innovation, has been rejected by regulators in the US, EU, and now the UK, and the Apple vs Epic Games case at the Supreme Court level adds further pressure on the US front. Whether the UK ends up with rules that work in practice or another arrangement Apple finds ways to neutralize will depend on how precisely the CMA drafts its final decision.
