A coalition of over 600 Japanese companies is urging further regulatory action regarding Apple’s recent changes to its App Store policies, arguing that the modifications intended to comply with the country’s Mobile Software Competition Act (MSCA) are insufficient. The groups claim the new rules haven’t created a viable path for developers to utilize alternative payment methods and distribution channels.
The situation stems from Apple’s announcement outlining changes to its App Store operations in Japan. These changes, mirroring similar moves globally, were designed to address growing regulatory scrutiny and competition concerns. The MSCA mandates that Apple allow alternative app marketplaces and permit developers to process payments outside of Apple’s In-App Purchase system.
While Apple framed these changes as a positive step, emphasizing a balance between openness and security, the industry coalition disagrees. The core of the complaint revolves around the fee structures attached to these new options. Developers can now link users to off-app promotions and offer alternative in-app payment methods, but face commissions of up to 15% on web-based transactions and additional charges for apps distributed outside the App Store. According to reports in The Japan News, the groups argue these fees eliminate any economic incentive to utilize the newly permitted payment methods.
The coalition, comprised of seven IT-related industry groups representing major firms, game companies, and software developers, is calling on Apple – and Google – to waive commissions on off-App Store transactions. They advocate for a market where “a diverse range of payment methods can genuinely become options,” suggesting the current framework doesn’t achieve that goal.
Apple’s response to the MSCA included several layers of security measures intended to mitigate risks associated with allowing apps from sources outside the tightly controlled App Store environment. The company highlighted concerns about increased exposure to malware, fraud, scams, and inappropriate content. To address these, Apple implemented a process called “Notarization” for all iOS apps distributed in Japan, regardless of the marketplace. Notarization involves automated checks and human review to verify basic functionality and identify known security threats. However, Apple acknowledges that Notarization is less comprehensive than the full App Review process applied to apps within the App Store.
The MSCA’s requirements for alternative app marketplaces also include an authorization process for those marketplaces, designed to ensure they meet certain standards. This differs from the approach taken in Europe with the Digital Markets Act (DMA), which Apple characterized as less balanced in its approach to security and openness. However, the Japanese industry groups clearly believe Apple’s implementation of the MSCA doesn’t go far enough to foster genuine competition.
This isn’t the first expression of dissatisfaction. , the Mobile Content Forum, one of the seven industry groups involved, issued a statement criticizing Apple and Google’s approach. The current joint statement represents a further escalation of pressure on both companies and a call for intervention from the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC).
The JFTC is now being urged to re-examine the issue, potentially leading to further enforcement actions. Whether the commission will respond to these calls remains to be seen. The outcome will likely have significant implications for the app ecosystem in Japan, and could set a precedent for how similar competition laws are implemented and enforced in other markets. The core question is whether Apple’s concessions are sufficient to meet the intent of the MSCA – to create a more competitive landscape for app developers and consumers – or whether further regulatory intervention is required to achieve that goal.
The situation highlights the complexities of balancing innovation, security, and competition in the digital marketplace. While Apple argues its approach prioritizes user safety, developers contend that the financial burdens imposed by the new rules effectively negate the benefits of increased distribution options. The JFTC’s decision will be closely watched by both sides, as well as by regulators and industry observers worldwide.
