Apple Says UK App Store Regulatory Proposal Is Effectively Price Control
N.R. Finch
Apple filed a formal submission to the UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), calling its proposed App Store rules de facto price regulation and warning they would harm innovation and investment — the outcome will directly shape Apple's commission structure and services revenue in the UK.
What exactly is the CMA asking Apple to do?
The UK's new digital-markets framework gives the CMA power to impose tailored requirements on firms deemed to hold "strategic market status." Both Apple and Google received that designation last year.
Two core demands stand out: let developers steer users to payment channels outside the App Store, and ensure any fees charged for such "steering" are fair and reasonable.
This means → the CMA wants to open the payments walled garden *and* cap the toll outside it. Apple argues that crosses the line from promoting competition into directly regulating prices.
What is Apple's counter-argument?
Apple's submission leads with a key number: the App Store facilitated more than £46.5 billion (roughly $61.8 billion) in UK billings and sales in 2025, with commission income accounting for less than 3.5% of that total.
In plain terms = Apple is saying: I built a platform moving hundreds of billions in value, and I take under 3.5% — that is not expensive.
Apple adds that no evidence shows changing the payment model would lower prices for consumers. Put simply = regulation would cut Apple's take, but shoppers may see no benefit.
How do developers see this?
Gene Burrus, global policy adviser at the Coalition for App Fairness, accused Apple of "leveraging its position as a dominant platform gatekeeper to secure an unfair competitive advantage."
His core argument: Apple's rebuttal ignores the barriers to entry developers face — the issue is not whether the commission rate is fair, but that developers have no real alternative.
Apple counters that developers already have multiple ways to transact with users outside its platform. This means → the two sides are not even arguing about the same thing: Apple says "the rate is reasonable"; developers say "the choice is too narrow."
What is really at stake?
The central question is singular: can the CMA draw a clear line between "promoting competition" and "directly intervening in commercial pricing"?
If the CMA ultimately rules it can regulate pricing, Apple's UK commission structure will need reshaping, and services revenue — Apple's fastest-growing segment in recent years — will come under direct pressure.
This reflects a broader pattern: major markets worldwide are testing the regulatory boundaries of the platform economy one by one, and the UK outcome is likely to become a reference template for other jurisdictions.
Content is for reference only, not financial advice.