{"id":53712,"date":"2026-10-30T15:11:59","date_gmt":"2026-10-30T19:11:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/?p=53712"},"modified":"2026-10-30T15:12:58","modified_gmt":"2026-10-30T19:12:58","slug":"australia-app-marketplaces-external-payments-no-fees-audit","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mjtsai.com\/blog\/2026\/10\/30\/australia-app-marketplaces-external-payments-no-fees-audit\/","title":{"rendered":"Australia: App Marketplaces, External Payments, No Fees\/Audit"},"content":{"rendered":"

Hartley Charlton<\/a> (Hacker News<\/a>):<\/p>\n

\n

Australia’s Federal Court today ordered Apple<\/a> to allow competing app stores, direct app downloads, and alternative payment services for Australian users from March 1, 2027.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

Apple must let users find, download, install, and update apps through competing marketplaces and websites without charging for access or obstructing their use. Developers must receive the necessary tools on substantially the same terms as for App Store<\/a> distribution, and Apple cannot penalize them for using competing stores or payment services.<\/p>\n

Developers will also be able to offer alternative payments and link to other ways to pay, including within App Store apps. Apple cannot require them to offer its own purchasing system alongside alternatives, report those transactions, or allow Apple to audit them.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Apps will be notarized, but Apple cannot collect fees on purchases not made through the App Store. This seems like the best antitrust result yet. This will take effect on March 1, 2027 unless blocked by Apple’s appeal or request for extension.<\/p>\n\n

Marcus Mendes<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Today’s order follows a ruling last year<\/a> that Apple violated Australian competition law by restricting alternative app distribution and payment methods, in a lawsuit brought by Epic Games similar to its long-running legal battle with Apple in the US.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

Justice Beach described the latter two actions as “a paradigm example of Apple’s enforcement of its restrictive terms, in contravention of” section 46 of Australia’s Competition and Consumer Act 2010<\/a>, which prohibits corporations with substantial market power from engaging in conduct that has “the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition” in that market.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

When it comes to Apple’s wins in the decision, the list is much slimmer. Judge Beach rejected Epic’s request to extend the court’s injunctions worldwide and allowed Apple to maintain security scanning and notarization requirements for apps distributed outside the App Store. And while Apple must permit competing app marketplaces on iOS, it is not required to distribute them through its own App Store.<\/p>\n

[…]<\/p>\n

Finally, the court ordered Apple to pay 85% of Epic’s legal costs incurred through the original trial[…]<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Nick Heer<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

It seems unsustainable to keep dripping out rule changes one country at a time<\/a>, especially as many of them slightly differ in the details even when regulators’ overarching aims are similar. The reasons for the company’s stubbornness — namely: security and privacy — become much less believable as a growing number of regions require alternative distribution channels, essentially without issue.<\/p>\n

Apple should just rip off the bandage and do Gatekeeper<\/a> for iOS.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Hartley Charlton<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\n

Fortnite will return to Australia’s App Store today, Epic Games told Reuters<\/a>, after a federal court ordered Apple to allow eligible Epic apps back onto the store.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n

Previously:<\/p>\n