A group of European app developers and consumer groups recently jointly submitted a petition to the European Commission, asking regulators to further reduce Apple's app store fees in the EU, saying that after Apple adjusted its fee structure, it still puts EU local apps at a disadvantage when competing with U.S. competitors. The alliance believes that Apple’s so-called “compliance adjustments” do not truly respond to EU regulatory requirements, but instead continue to maintain a high-cost environment through more complex charging projects.
The petition was submitted by the Coalition for App Fairness (CAF), which is composed of a number of well-known companies. Its members include Astropad, Epic Games, Masimo, Life360, Proton, Spotify and other companies that have long criticized Apple’s App Store rules. These companies have previously launched legal and regulatory battles against Apple many times in the United States and other jurisdictions. The Alliance stated in a public statement that the current situation is "unsustainable and is harming the app economy" and accused Apple of "continuing to ignore the compliance requirements of EU law", especially expressing strong dissatisfaction with Apple for not disclosing new terms for 2026.
After pressure from the European Union this summer, Apple announced the cancellation of the controversial Core Technology Fee (CTE) in the EU market and replaced it with a number of new fees. The previous CTE required developers to pay Apple a 27% fee on the revenue they earned through the App Store to cover hosting and distribution costs. Now Apple charges a combination of "customer acquisition fee", "store service fee" and "CTE or commission".
According to the new structure, the "customer acquisition fee" charges a 2% fee on the sale of digital goods and services, with a time range of up to six months after the user's first download; the "store service fee" is used to pay for platform-related service costs, with rates ranging from 5% to 13%, and certain discounts are provided to specific groups such as small businesses. Despite the name change, the developer camp believes that the overall burden and uncertainty have not been substantially reduced, especially since Apple has not disclosed specific terms for the coming years, causing European innovative companies to face huge uncertainty in business planning.
It is unclear whether Apple’s “fee reshuffle” is enough to dispel the European Commission’s concerns about its violation of the Digital Markets Act (DMA), but what is certain is that the controversy surrounding fees has not subsided due to the nominal adjustment. Previous data and reports show that although the overall rate of the App Store in the EU has been reduced by about 10%, most developers have not passed on these savings to end users, and there has been almost no significant decline in app prices, which has also added new complexity to regulatory discussions.
The Alliance for App Fairness further accused on social platforms that after EU officials determined that some of Apple's App Store charges were illegal eight months ago, Apple still "went its own way" and continued to act according to its own rules; at the same time, it "tied developers under an opaque system" with unannounced new terms for 2026, leaving European innovators as if they were "hanging in the air" in strategic and investment decisions. The European Commission has not yet made a public response to whether this round of petitions will initiate a new round of formal enforcement procedures. However, as the DMA enters the substantive implementation stage, Apple's App Store business model in the EU will undoubtedly continue to face high-pressure scrutiny.