Dutch regulators have fined Apple another €5 million in what is now an endless dispute over third-party payment systems for dating apps.
In total, Apple was fined €25 million, with the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) ordering the company to pay €5 million per week up to a total of €50 million. euros if it does not comply with the provisions in recent weeks on the activation of third-party payments for dating applications.
In a statement reported by TechCrunch, the ACM said that Apple refuses to make serious proposals and that the solutions offered by the company “continue to create too many hurdles for dating app providers”.
“During the past week, we have not received any new proposals from Apple to meet the requirements. This is why Apple will have to pay a fifth penalty. This means that the total amount of all penalties currently stands at 25 million euros.
We have made it clear to Apple how they can meet the requirements. So far, however, they have refused to make serious offers. We find Apple’s attitude deplorable, especially since the ACM’s requirements were upheld in court on December 24th. Apple’s so-called “solutions” continue to create too many obstacles for dating app providers who want to use their own payment systems.
We have established that Apple is a dominant company. This brings an additional responsibility vis-à-vis its buyers and, more generally, the company. Apple must establish reasonable conditions for the use of its services. In this context, the company cannot abuse its dominant position. Apple’s conditions will therefore have to take into account the interests of buyers. »
Apple said in mid-January that it would comply with the ACM’s decision on allowing alternative payment systems, but the company’s terms only called for its fee to be reduced by 30% to 27 %, forcing developers to maintain separate application tracks and send monthly sales statements through alternative means to those offered by Apple in order to track commissions.
Apple and ACM clearly have different ideas about which policies will meet the requirements of the original ruling, and the two sides still seem far apart.