Apple faces escalating fines over Dutch dating app payments
A Dutch regulator warns that while Apple has to pay the maximum 50 million euro ($55 million) fine for failing to abide by its dating app payments order for the App Store, there may be more, higher penalties on the way.

On Monday, the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) confirmed reports from Friday that Apple had failed to comply with its order to enable third-party payments for dating apps in the Netherlands regional App Store. The ordeal for Apple may be far from over, as the regulator offers the threat that more fines could be imposed in the future.
Apple was fined 5 million euro ($5.5 million) per week for ten weeks, for not properly complying with the order. While Apple submitted a new proposal to the ACM on March 22, the company still hadn't complied with the ACM's requirements, so ended up having to pay the tenth and final fine, reaching the maximum issued penalty.
In a statement, the ACM offers that it welcomes Apple's proposal, and that "the adjusted proposal should result in definitive conditions for dating-app providers that wish to use the App Store." After receiving a proposal for definitive conditions, the ACM then will consult with "market participants," such as dating app providers, before issuing a decision of compliance.
Though Apple has to pay out the maximum fine, the ACM warns that there could be more payments in the future. "If ACM comes to the conclusion that Apple does not meet the requirements, ACM may impose another order subject to periodic penalty payments," the regulator writes.
The new fines could include "possibly higher penalties this time around" so that it could "stimulate Apple to comply with the order," it adds.
While a $55 million fine may be a considerable sum for many companies, Apple's vast revenues and cash reserves mean it doesn't necessarily feel much of a pinch when it comes to the fine. After five consecutive weeks of fines, the ACM complained that Apple had "refused to put forward any serious proposals," indicating Apple was dragging its heels on the matter.
It remains to be seen if the ACM will levy a considerable-enough fine against Apple to prompt rapid action.
Read on AppleInsider

On Monday, the Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) confirmed reports from Friday that Apple had failed to comply with its order to enable third-party payments for dating apps in the Netherlands regional App Store. The ordeal for Apple may be far from over, as the regulator offers the threat that more fines could be imposed in the future.
Apple was fined 5 million euro ($5.5 million) per week for ten weeks, for not properly complying with the order. While Apple submitted a new proposal to the ACM on March 22, the company still hadn't complied with the ACM's requirements, so ended up having to pay the tenth and final fine, reaching the maximum issued penalty.
In a statement, the ACM offers that it welcomes Apple's proposal, and that "the adjusted proposal should result in definitive conditions for dating-app providers that wish to use the App Store." After receiving a proposal for definitive conditions, the ACM then will consult with "market participants," such as dating app providers, before issuing a decision of compliance.
Though Apple has to pay out the maximum fine, the ACM warns that there could be more payments in the future. "If ACM comes to the conclusion that Apple does not meet the requirements, ACM may impose another order subject to periodic penalty payments," the regulator writes.
The new fines could include "possibly higher penalties this time around" so that it could "stimulate Apple to comply with the order," it adds.
While a $55 million fine may be a considerable sum for many companies, Apple's vast revenues and cash reserves mean it doesn't necessarily feel much of a pinch when it comes to the fine. After five consecutive weeks of fines, the ACM complained that Apple had "refused to put forward any serious proposals," indicating Apple was dragging its heels on the matter.
It remains to be seen if the ACM will levy a considerable-enough fine against Apple to prompt rapid action.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Maybe the only thing a web app would lack that a dating app “needs” is notifications. But that is an easy feature to add since Safari already supports them on macOS.
Is it b/c "dating apps" are used to book appointments int he red light district? And or the "proprietors" are withholding back political kickbacks till they get their way?
Always remember the macOS market has had "side loading" and third party payment systems since day one and is quite healthy and profitable for Apple to this day. iOS can implement gatekeeping that can be bypassed by the user if so desired, just like macOS. Warn the shit out of users before allowing it. Scare the crap out of them before letting them download and install questionable software.
We as Apple supporters should also be ready push back when some idiot gets their data or identity compromised and then tries to blame Apple for it, just like the losers who install malware but claim they didn’t do nuttin’.
In fact, it seems likely to me that Apple will switch to the rental model across the entire EU. I think that's their secret plan.
Apple already sandboxes apps. There is no reason they can't sandbox third party apps and show a popup when they try and access the filesystem/documents/microphone/etc just like they do with third party apps not sourced from the App Store on macOS. macOS has the immutable boot volume, iOS could do this with a similar iOS version of csrutil to allow users to write to the boot volume (with copious warnings etc of course) - rooting in Android parlance. This is how it works on macOS too, and macOS isn't riddled with malware.
• The apparent inside knowledge about what Apple did in those cases. You know nothing about what was negotiated or conceded, what was threatened, or how long Apple took to comply. It also doesn’t appear that they touched Apple’s revenue streams at all. (Who knows, though? Political graft is different in said autocracies, a bit more direct — it isn’t whitewashed as fines, fees, and taxes.)
• It amazes me that anybody can be like “they listen to those durn autocrats” and also be like “we’re a free democracy and that’s better!” but then actively try to deny Apple it’s full rights under those democratic laws. Which is it? Do you like strict and no guarantees of liberty or free but messy? Make up your mind.
PS - that side loading model you so love nearly destroyed Apple, has never been as robust, has been exceedingly expensive most of that time due to piracy and other factors (not to mention the businesses that went under because of it), led to the spread of massive amounts of malware (mostly targeted at Windows, but hey). And honestly, do we not innovate on business models anymore? Do I have to do it the way grandpappy did it? Should we get rid of the mortgage system and go back to building our houses from kits, or with the help of my church members? I mean that crap “worked just fine”, too. Let’s do away with credit cards while we’re at it, and only pay in gold coin. I mean … you do realize that almost all the things you enjoy about modern life exist because of the new financial changes/innovations that came with them and allowed them to mature into stable businesses, right?
About 1:40 in https://youtu.be/GgE_27xfzSc
If Apple doesn't pay, they'll be taken to court and will ultimately lose as they have not complied with an order by a government regulator. Also, the EU is just about to force the iPhone to become more open, do you think Apple will just ignore that too?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Match_Group
Match Group is also one of the first members that founded CAF (Coalition of Fair Apps), along with Epic and Spotify. So for sure CAF is also behind this lawsuit but why only cover "dating" services? And there don't seem to be any connection between Match.com or any of the other "dating" services own by Match Group and the Netherlands. It's not even one of Match Group largest market. Which is not surprising considering why should people in the Netherlands pay for a subscription when the same "service" is an Uber ride away.
The only thing I can come up with is that the politicians had to be paid off but weren't interested in Fortnite Bucks or free subscription to music streaming for life.