Apple tests EU by adding scare screens to apps using third-party payments [u]

AppleInsider

European Union App Store users are being shown warnings in the App Store about apps that let users make payments directly to developers -- despite this being a clear violation of the Digital Markets Act.

Apple has already been fined $570 million for anticompetitive practices under the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA), although it is appealing. Now it at least appears to be asking for a further fine, because it has added warnings expressly designed to dissuade users from buying apps with alternative payment processes.

It's actually in the recent US ruling that Apple was explicitly forbidden to use what are called "scare screens". The EU has not as yet ruled against that specific technique, although in March 2024 it was alerted to Apple's plans by rivals including Epic Games.

Nonetheless, the EU has focused on Apple's alleged anticompetitive practices. In its announcement of its ruling in April 2025, the EU said that it "ordered Apple to remove the technical and commercial restrictions on steering and to refrain from perpetuating the non-compliant conduct in the future, which includes adopting conduct with an equivalent object or effect."

Now as spotted by developer Viktor Maric, Apple has added a warning to App Store listings for apps that contain their own payment systems.

first time seeing this. Apple will punish the apps with external payment system pic.twitter.com/MBeqi8huW5

-- Viktor Maric (@maric_viktor)

May 12, 2025

Apple is using what it calls its caution symbol, an exclamation mark in a triangle. Its developer documentation describes that only in a macOS section of its human interface guidelines, but still stresses that it must be used sparingly.

"Use the symbol only when extra attention is really needed, as when confirming an action that might result in unexpected loss of data," it says. "Don't use the symbol for tasks whose only purpose is to overwrite or remove data, such as a save or empty trash."

There are no guidelines for displaying warnings in the App Store itself, although developers get extensive instruction for what notifications their apps can contain.

So it appears that Apple has not contravened the letter of its own rules, but it is deploying its highest level of warnings in a situation that doesn't warrant it.

Similarly, Apple doesn't seem to be directly contravening any explicit instruction from the EU. Since the warning is contained within the App Store listing instead of being on a separate screen, it may technically not even be in breach of the recent US ruling.

Apple's response

In a statement to AppleInsider, Apple said that the warning displayed is not a new addition. It has reportedly been in place since March 2024, and details of it were included in Apple's discussions with the European Union.

Apple further said that the European Commission did not object to the screen. It was part of Apple's overall compliance proposals which it is claimed the EU told it not to implement at that stage.

As Apple has previously said in its appeal against the EU's $570 million fine, the EU gave no further guidance. It allegedly then fined Apple specifically for not implementing the measures the company had proposed.

The EU has not responded to the coverage of the warning screen, but it did previously refute Apple's claim of the European Commission failing to respond to proposals. EC spokesperson Lea Zuber said that the Commission's fine "only addresses the solution that Apple decided to roll out, not any other hypothetical approach that the company might have been considering."

What may happen next

It's this kind of dancing right on the line of non-compliance that has led to Apple being forced to make changes to the US App Store.

In every single way bar anti-steering, Apple won its years-long App Store trial against Epic Games. But it was solely how it chose to fight that anti-steering issue that Judge Gonzalez Rogers described as "insubordination," and a "gross miscalculation."

Now it appears that Apple is trying to push as far as it can against the EU's anti-competition too. Apple has previously made persuasive arguments about the EU requirements making the App Store less secure, but this is a test of compliance that's unlikely to be allowed to continue.

Updated: 05:55 Eastern on May 16, 2025 with Apple's response.



Read on AppleInsider

randominternetperson

The image of the tweet doesn't make any sense unless you click thru and see that the dude is referring to the top of the image.  (Not sure how this is "punishment," but that's a different issue.)

edited May 15

jmaille

I find it curious that something that tells you a fact that is absolutely true is referred to as a "scare screen."  

Also why would this be a scare screen for people who are intentionally looking for apps that don't use Apple's eco-structure?

Amd finally, does anyone know whether the EU has something like the 5th and 14th amendments to the US Constitution that explicitly prevent the government and the courts from forcing someone to provide things to others without compensation?  --- Oh, wait, I guess that doesn't matter, we don't follow those rules in the US anymore so why should the EU?

xyzzy-xxx

I think Apple should give up on suggesting that their App Store is better in any regard than other online stores. It may be correct in some regards for some competitors and in other regards some competitors may be better than Apple. The whole gatekeeper / wallet garden thing is obsolete.

williamlondon

JMaille said:

I find it curious that something that tells you a fact that is absolutely true is referred to as a "scare screen."  

How else will the trolls find AI??

commentzilla

xyzzy-xxx said:

I think Apple should give up on suggesting that their App Store is better in any regard than other online stores. It may be correct in some regards for some competitors and in other regards some competitors may be better than Apple. The whole gatekeeper / wallet garden thing is obsolete.

So when I accidentally make a purchase or I want to end my subscription, these 3rd party stores will automatically give me my money back and/or promptly end my subscription. 

ranson

I've been very critical of Apple's anti-steering approach and stance against a user's right to install whatever they want on their device without being gatekept by Apple.

But I do not see any issue with the "scare screen" here. It does not add any extra steps that make the process of installing the app more difficult, and nothing about the messaging is untrue. So It should be well within Apple's right to disclose this information before the user downloads the app.

edited May 15

pizzaboxmac

I wonder what will happen when the side-load happens and the software bricks the phone or ruins it. The consumer then sues Apple and the EU sides with the consumer that's what. This scenario is a strong possibility.

macgui

I have no issue with the text of that message but find the Caution symbol (in red no less) a little over the top and unnecessary. A simple NOTE: would be sufficient to caution users especially if that warning is prominently placed. I see the use of the Caution symbol as poking the EU bear. Or giving it The Finger.

mikethemartian

JMaille said:

I find it curious that something that tells you a fact that is absolutely true is referred to as a "scare screen."  

Also why would this be a scare screen for people who are intentionally looking for apps that don't use Apple's eco-structure?

Amd finally, does anyone know whether the EU has something like the 5th and 14th amendments to the US Constitution that explicitly prevent the government and the courts from forcing someone to provide things to others without compensation?  --- Oh, wait, I guess that doesn't matter, we don't follow those rules in the US anymore so why should the EU?

An employee at Apple used the word “scary” in their internal communications about it so the court referred to them as “scare screens”

From the court transcript:
“In Slack communications dated November 16, 2021, the Apple employees crafting the warning screen for Project Michigan discussed how best to frame its language.  (CX-206.)  Mr. Onak suggested the warning screen should include the language: “By continuing on the web, you will leave the app and be taken to an external website” because “‘external website’ sounds scary, so execs will love it.”  (Id. at .2.) “

avon b7

JMaille said:

I find it curious that something that tells you a fact that is absolutely true is referred to as a "scare screen."  

Also why would this be a scare screen for people who are intentionally looking for apps that don't use Apple's eco-structure?

Amd finally, does anyone know whether the EU has something like the 5th and 14th amendments to the US Constitution that explicitly prevent the government and the courts from forcing someone to provide things to others without compensation?  --- Oh, wait, I guess that doesn't matter, we don't follow those rules in the US anymore so why should the EU?

This subject came up in the US court case.

Calling it a 'scare screen' is absolutely fine IMO because that is what it is and Apple is well aware of the fact. 

Apple even tried to defend itself in court (the word that popped up during the trial was 'scary') by claiming that it was a term of art or some other crazy justification. I do not remember the exact words but the court outright rejected that explanation saying it strained common sense.

Factual or not, the purpose of that screen is to seed doubt in the mind of the user (a scare tactic) and we can reach that reasonable conclusion as internal communication on this kind of wording was revealed during the court process.

I don't know if the EU will see it as reasonable or not but Apple is playing with fire by deliberately treading the compliance/non-compliance line. 

The term malicious compliance isn't far off the mark but Apple chose its path and will have to deal with the consequences. 

williamlondon

Apple has an obligation to warn users who buy their products and are in their ecosystem because they prefer the safety and security of their devices and purchases - not to warn would be wholly irresponsible on Apple's part and could have damaging consequences to their brand if something were to go wrong if they weren't warned. In fact, class action lawsuits would most likely arise against Apple, making this a fiduciary responsibility, not just a brand/moral/ethical one.

macgui

williamlondon said:

Apple has an obligation to warn users who buy their products and are in their ecosystem...

No one is questioning Apple's action of the warning screen. It's been explained why it's called a "scare screen". I don't believe the Caution symbol is appropriate and is Apple deliberately walking a fine line. Replacing it with NOTE: would have been sufficient and not provocative.

9secondkox2

LOL @ "Scare screens." 

It's informative and factual. 

The EU wants to open people up to all kinds of junk, the least Apple could do it let them know. 

The caution symbols is indeed warranted. And the EU should have mandated the caution screen to begin with - you know, if their DMA was legit and actually for the benefit of the people using the app stores.

edited May 17