
Spotify’s EU antitrust complaint could be a serious threat to Apple - fauigerzigerk
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/03/apples-in-app-purchase-rules-could-violate-european-competition-law/
======
freedomben
I'm skeptical that fruitful discussion will ensue here, given that previous
threads about this topic have mostly devolved into whether Apple has a
monopoly or not. I won't go there.

Instead of debating that, as an American who has seen the US deal with
monopolistic stuff (Microsoft) but never watched the EU do similar, how does
the EU typically look at things like this? Are there any precedents of similar
cases where the EU has either explicitly not taken action, or has intervened?
The article mentions that the EU is likely more receptive to the complaint
than US courts would be, but (unless I missed it) doesn't really back that up
with precedent (perhaps because there isn't any yet?)

~~~
fauigerzigerk
The competition commission pursues a lot of cases but most of them are not
discussed in the media that much:
[http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/statistics.html](http://ec.europa.eu/competition/ecn/statistics.html)

There are some recent cases that are getting public attention because they are
directed against large US conglomerates. For instance:

Commission sends Statement of Objections to Google on Android operating system
and applications: [http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-16-1492_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-16-1492_en.htm)

European Union vs. Google:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_vs._Google)

Microsoft Corp. v. Commission:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Corp._v._Commission)

Commission fines Mastercard €570 million for obstructing merchants' access to
cross-border card payment services: [http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-19-582_en.pdf](http://europa.eu/rapid/press-
release_IP-19-582_en.pdf)

------
acd
The core here is that the app stores of phone vendors devices bypasses
competition laws by being a form of monopoly where the device vendor dictates
the terms.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_competition_law)
"Abuse of dominance" "(c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent
transactions with other trading parties, thereby placing them at a competitive
disadvantage;"
[https://www.timetoplayfair.com/facts/](https://www.timetoplayfair.com/facts/)
" Does Uber pay it? No. Deliveroo? No. Does Apple Music pay it? No."

"(a) directly or indirectly fix purchase or selling prices or any other
trading conditions;" 30% commission to Apple is a form of price fixing. A
lawyer could argue that is anti competitive.

"Price discrimination[55] Arbitrarily charging some market participants higher
prices that are unconnected to the actual costs of supplying the goods or
services."

"(d) apply dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading
parties, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;" It sounded by
Spotify that for example Uber had been given a different deal.

"Second, Article 102 of the Treaty prohibits firms that hold a dominant
position on a given market to abuse that position, for example by charging
unfair prices, by limiting production, or by refusing to innovate to the
prejudice of consumers."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law)
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherman_Antitrust_Act_of_1890)
"price discrimination between different purchasers, if such discrimination
tends to create a monopoly"

"A Section 2 monopolization violation has two elements:[16]

(1) the possession of monopoly power in the relevant market; and (2) the
willful acquisition or maintenance of that power as distinguished from growth
or development as a consequence of a superior product, business acumen, or
historic accident."

One could argue that the app store is a form of monopoly where Apple dictates
who gets to sell and who dont and at what commission level.

------
writepub
Apple's predatory behavior is a _serious_ threat to competition! Hence the
complaint!

> Apple only controls 20 to 25 percent of the European smartphone market

But controls 70% of revenues and profits generated from apps. People LOVE
talking at cross and mis-characterizing Apple's monopoly status. The market in
question is NOT smartphone sales, but apps! For instance, in-car accessories,
though requiring compliance from the car manufacturer, cannot be blocked by
the manufacturer. I should be allowed to use Bose speakers in my car without
seeking Toyota's blessing, given how I OWN the car after paying full price.

What apps I run on my iPhone is not something I want Apple to control. And I
certainly do not want Apple artificially inflating the cost of my favorite
apps with anti-competitive behavior!!

BTW, Apple is also in litigation in the US [1] on related matters.

[1]: [https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/supreme-court-
ap...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/6/20/17479480/supreme-court-apple-vs-
pepper-antitrust-lawsuit-standing-explainer)

~~~
freedomben
> _What kind of hit-piece is this?_

Who did you interpret was getting hit by this "hit-piece"? It seemed to mostly
just summarize Spotify's argument, which leads me to think you are defending
Apple saying it's a hit-piece against them, but the rest of your comment would
be a total non-sequitur then.

~~~
writepub
Agreed - On initial reading, I felt the article was trying to make excuses for
Apple's claims, but I realize it was merely summarizing US vs EU rules. Edited
it

