Brazil Rules Apple Must Lift Restrictions On In-App Payments

Brazilian antitrust regulator Cade said this week that Apple must lift restrictions on payment methods for in-app purchases, among other things, as the watchdog moved to proceed with an investigation into a complaint filed by Latin America e-commerce giant MercadoLibre. From a report: MercadoLibre's complaint, filed in 2022 in Brazil and Mexico, accused Apple of imposing a series of restrictions on the distribution of digital goods and in-app purchases, including banning apps from distributing third-party digital goods and services such as movies, music, video games, books and written content.

In the complaint, MercadoLibre criticized the California tech giant for requiring developers that offer digital goods or services within apps to use Apple's own payment system and stopping them from redirecting buyers to their websites. Cade ruled that Apple must allow app developers to add tools so customers can buy their services or products outside the app, such as through the use of hyperlinks to external websites.

Restoration of the old status quo

[Luckyo]

Before the internet and early internet: lots of small shops offering all kinds of services through a number of payment systems. Only thing necessary is that both person purchasing and the seller agree on payment method.

Internet when it centralized: a few dominant players gatekeep everyone with their "app store" model, forcing all payments to go through them with a massive chunk of money going to them. Essentially a third party coming between seller and buyer.

Lots of nations today: no, you don't get to force payments to go through your very expensive processor, just because you reached a quasi-monopolistic position in software distribution. We prefer the old system, where there were a lot of providers of payment systems, and both sides of each transaction could choose one they want, and we will legally enforce it.

Re:

[unrtst]

AFAICT, no one is forcing you to go through X for anything. Whereas payment processing on mobile is a forced arrangement for any 3rd party applications - there is no feasible "make your own".

Re:

[easyTree]

Not yet, at least :-)

Re:

[NoMoreACs]

Not yet, at least :-)

iOS has a fairly small percentage of the global Marketshare for Smartphones. Like below 33%, small. . .

https://gs.statcounter.com/os-... [statcounter.com]

It couldn't control the App Market if it tried! Which it does, and they don't.

Let's see...

[Valgrus Thunderaxe]

all the mental gymnastics that we'll see here to defend these types of payment models. If wonder if this was about Google, we'd see the same apologetics we're about to see --

Re:Let's see...

[The-Ixian]

I will attempt to consolidate the arguments:

- "It's Apple's app store. If you don't want to play by Apple's rules, you should not sell in Apple's ecosystem or make your own device."
- "Apple protects us by keeping the riffraff out of the app store."
- "Apple is the best and I love their devices, so anything that seems to go against them feels wrong to me."

Re:Let's see...

[Targon]

The flaw in that is where Apple demands a cut of any app that runs on an iOS device, even if you install it without going through the App store. This would be like suggesting that Apple should get money for transactions made OFF the App Store. We have sales taxes(which many don't like), but now, just because it's an app that runs on an Apple device, Apple thinks it deserves a cut of any app sales? That's more monopolistic behavior than even Microsoft has tried.

Picture, you buy something from a store across the street from a mall, but the mall feels it deserves a cut, even for business done outside of its property.

Re:

[unrtst]

Picture, you buy something from a store across the street from a mall, but the mall feels it deserves a cut, even for business done outside of its property.

Well, would you have even gone to that street if it weren't for the mall and all the infrastructure it brought to the area? There weren't even roads there before they laid the foundations. They've already provided the store with access to electricity, water, sewage, roads, and the very draw that brings people to the area in the first place. They can't be expected to maintain all of that for their competition at no fee! /s

Re:

[Targon]

Before that mall was ever there, people would go down "main street", or word of mouth. The mall drives up real estate values, so those with a store near a mall already end up paying a lot more for the lease, plus they need to deal with all the negative things, including traffic that might make it more difficult to go to that store. Electricity, water, sewers, roads...yea, those things are brought to just about every development, from private to commercial. You know who maintains all of those services?

Re:

[unrtst]

FWIW, I ended my screed with a sarcasm tag. I thought your store-across-the-street-from-the-mall analogy was good.

In the EU, Apple imposes a 50 euro cent per user per year install fee for everyone using a 3rd party app store, and a 10% commission on external sales, and a 5% fee on purchases made within a year of install (ref: https://www.theverge.com/2024/... [theverge.com] ; /. story: https://apple.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org])

I can't imagine a mall charging a neighboring store 50 cent for every unique user that went into the nei

Re:

[easyTree]

This would be like suggesting that Apple should get money for transactions made OFF the App Store.

You mean like how Facebook track everyone - even if they don't use their app?

Seems fair to me - coming soon: Click to update your air credits - 30% tax included.

Re:

[tlhIngan]

Picture, you buy something from a store across the street from a mall, but the mall feels it deserves a cut, even for business done outside of its property.

Malls actually do that.

A mall I know the store owner takes 10% of his revenue every month. This is on top of their monthly lease payments for the store's space.

Also, any business he does online is also charged as part of that 10% because the mall space is used to fulfill those online orders (he's a small store owner, not a chain, so online orders all go

Re:

[larryjoe]

I will attempt to consolidate the arguments:

- "It's Apple's app store. If you don't want to play by Apple's rules, you should not sell in Apple's ecosystem or make your own device."
- "Apple protects us by keeping the riffraff out of the app store."
- "Apple is the best and I love their devices, so anything that seems to go against them feels wrong to me."

Almost sounds like the same apologies for protection schemes by the Mob, gangs, and Mexican drug dealers. Hmm, also throw HOAs into that group.

Re:

[LodCrappo]

Apple good. Google bad. I love my chosen corporate god and foresake all others.

Re:

[drinkypoo]

If wonder if this was about Google, we'd see the same apologetics we're about to see --

You would see some of the same, because some people like to defend Google even when they are doing bad things. But what you will see instead since they are not the same is that people will compare them instead.

Google does some of the customer hostile things that Apple does, and doesn't do some of the other ones. So if the conversation were about Google, some of it would be "at least Google doesn't do here what Apple does" and that would be factual and logical.

Let's not pretend that they are the same, they a

google is more open then apple with app stores and

[Joe_Dragon]

google is more open then apple with app stores and rules

No links is absolutely bonkers!

[SouthSeb]

Apple demanding a cut from in-app purchases (for apps installed through its store) is one thing and may be debatable.

But to forbid developers to add links for purchases on their own websites is f...ing tyrannical.