EU considering new evidence to speed up antitrust case against Apple
Antitrust regulators in the European Union are reportedly planning to bolster their investigation of Apple with new evidence, though no new charges will be brought.
Apple logo
The European Commission in 2021 said that Apple was in violation of competition laws in the region because its App Store rules gave an unfair advantage to Apple Music.
Now, EU competition watchdogs are set out to submit new evidence in hopes of speeding up the case, Reuters reported Wednesday.
At the time, competition enforcers laid out its charges in a statement of objections. Earlier in 2022, authorities also considered sending a supplementary statement of objections, which could bring additional evidence to the case.
Now, sources tell Reuters that the Commission is expected to send a letter of facts to Apple instead. A letter of facts generally contains new evidence that reinforce the original charges. Companies are free to counter the new evidence with written submissions.
As this point, it isn't clear what new evidence the letter could contain, or how it will affect the investigation. Sources said that the decision to send the letter of facts in the first place has yet to be finalized.
Apple first came under serious antitrust scrutiny in the European Union after Spotify submitted a complaint alleging that the company unfairly restricted competitors to its own Apple Music streaming service.
Separately, the EU is also investigating Apple Pay. In May, it said that the Apple payment platform also broke antitrust laws.
The EU is also charging ahead with landmark legislation that would make many tactics said to be anticompetitive illegal under threat of massive fines.
Read on AppleInsider
Apple logo
The European Commission in 2021 said that Apple was in violation of competition laws in the region because its App Store rules gave an unfair advantage to Apple Music.
Now, EU competition watchdogs are set out to submit new evidence in hopes of speeding up the case, Reuters reported Wednesday.
At the time, competition enforcers laid out its charges in a statement of objections. Earlier in 2022, authorities also considered sending a supplementary statement of objections, which could bring additional evidence to the case.
Now, sources tell Reuters that the Commission is expected to send a letter of facts to Apple instead. A letter of facts generally contains new evidence that reinforce the original charges. Companies are free to counter the new evidence with written submissions.
As this point, it isn't clear what new evidence the letter could contain, or how it will affect the investigation. Sources said that the decision to send the letter of facts in the first place has yet to be finalized.
Apple first came under serious antitrust scrutiny in the European Union after Spotify submitted a complaint alleging that the company unfairly restricted competitors to its own Apple Music streaming service.
Separately, the EU is also investigating Apple Pay. In May, it said that the Apple payment platform also broke antitrust laws.
The EU is also charging ahead with landmark legislation that would make many tactics said to be anticompetitive illegal under threat of massive fines.
Read on AppleInsider
Comments
Thanks, Capitalism!
EU sues car manufacturer XYZ because they decided to deviate from the standard radio slot, and use a built-in system instead. Thereby obvious stifling competition such as pioneer, alpine, whatever. “Consumers DEMAND and MUST have the right to chose their own in-car entertainment system. Next, we will be looking into banning the OEM’s GPS as it unfairlly prefers the maker’s own product.”, a EU spokesman declared before driving off on his bike.
When CEO's like that of Epic, Match and Spotify must rely on the EU government ability to penalize companies for being more innovative and competitive, by crying like little kids about to lose a game of Checkers, on how it's not fair that they have to spend more of their own money to be more competitive ..... that's Socialism!
To me, socialism is all about trying to give everyone access to things which are essential to having a decent life: a good education, health care, affordable housing, food security, and the like. Capitalism is all about assuming everyone is greedy by nature (ala Thomas Hobbes), and trying to provide a framework where that greed is guided by the invisible hand of the market (ala Adam Smith).
Aside from maybe internet access, technology itself isn't essential, so the interest socialist states would have in it would simply to ensure that tech companies and employees are paying their fair share of taxes to help fund the essentials for everyone. What the EU is doing is more along the lines of trying to guide "the invisible hand" to ensure the market is healthy. But I'd argue that this "guidance" is often being driven by the greed of other companies who want a piece of the pie without putting in the hard work to be competitive. Nothing to do with socialism at all IMO.
1. Integrated solutions do have their advantages, from a coherent design and UX experience to deep integration of e.g. the gps system and the car’s electric battery charge level plus driving style.
2. Where do you put the limit between “this is my product. Comes as it is. Take it or leave it” and “protecting consumers from being exploited” ? Usually, such things are regulated in technical standards a manufacturer is required to adhere to in order to gain technical market access. Everything beyond that, is considered a free choice of the manufacturer.
https://www.thoughtco.com/socialism-vs-capitalism-4768969
There are really no wealthy country in the EU, who has a government that can truly be called Socialism. They all depend on Capitalism to fund their way of "Socialism". Private ownership and Income inequity in the EU is really no different than that in the US. Where a relatively small percentage of citizens, owns a large percentage of the wealth created by private enterprises. That shouldn't happen if a country was truly operating under Socialism. Under Socialism, those wealthy people would have been taxed to death, to fund the social network for the poorer people. Without Capitalism, most countries in the EU that consider itself operating under Socialism, would be more like Venezuela. But because Capitalism fund their way of "Socialism", they are more like the US.
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other peoples' money." ... Margret Thatcher
Without Capitalism, most EU countries with a government that consider themselves operating under "Socialism", would had ran out of other peoples' money a long time ago.
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-21/supply-issues-account-for-half-of-us-inflation-rise-study-shows
https://www.forbes.com/sites/dereksaul/2022/07/13/inflation-rises-again-to-40-year-high-but-gas-prices-may-help-drive-that-down-soon/?sh=2256c266126b
The actual reality is that a vast majority of countries are under capitalist systems with social programs — of course some more than others. What do you think Social Security is, if not a social program? Same wity Medicare.
The whole “Capitalism vs. evil European Socialism” is nothing but a made up talking point. Europe just has governments that have not yet fallen to the interests of big business — at least to US big business — and they’re trying to regulate monopolies and unfair business practices, using laws not unlike what the US used to apply not that long ago.
Going after Apple for monopolistic practices is ridiculous on its face, considering the extremely low market share of its platforms in Europe.
Also, one doesn't need a majority market share to unfairly utilise market clout. Apple is at around 30% on continental Europe; that's not "extremely low" — it just isn't as high as the US or Great Britain.
should Microsoft take responsibility for a third party hardware?
should the hardware company take responsibility for a third party intellectual property? Like Microsoft OS?
Of course, if Nicola Sturgeon gets her way, Great Britain won't be much of a thing, either*. Which is a pity because UKoGBaNI is much easier to pronounce than UKoEWaNI.