Dutch Foundation Seeks Consumer Damages Over Apple, Google App Payments (reuters.com) 12
Apple and Google face a potential class action lawsuit in the Netherlands over app store charges, after a foundation headed by Dutch entrepreneur Alexander Klopping began gathering claimants. Reuters reports: Klopping is a co-founder of Blendle, a digital platform that enables users to buy individual news articles, which he sold in 2020. He told Reuters his determination to pursue the tech giants grew out of his experience at Blendle. "The reason it's getting so much attention right now is that everyone feels in their gut that there's this imbalance of power when it comes to big tech companies." He said while developers have complained most about app store practices, costs are ultimately passed on to consumers.
Klopping's App Store Claims Foundation is being represented by law firm Hausfeld, with funding from Fortress Investment Group. Klopping's App Store Claims Foundation is being represented by law firm Hausfeld, with funding from Fortress Investment Group. Hausfeld lawyer Rob Okhuijsen said the next step will be submitting evidence to the Amsterdam District Court in April. If a judge agrees, the court would then begin weighing the merits of the complaint.
Klopping's App Store Claims Foundation is being represented by law firm Hausfeld, with funding from Fortress Investment Group. Klopping's App Store Claims Foundation is being represented by law firm Hausfeld, with funding from Fortress Investment Group. Hausfeld lawyer Rob Okhuijsen said the next step will be submitting evidence to the Amsterdam District Court in April. If a judge agrees, the court would then begin weighing the merits of the complaint.
Re: (Score:2)
When there's no more money in it. The alternative is ban those companies and make EU equivalents - Build more great walls.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: When is Europe (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why not XBox, PSn, Nintendo (Score:4, Insightful)
All of these also restrict applications running on their devices to be either purchased from their stores or signed by them (and they charge hefty amount for each copy of the signed apps). Together they have collected more money than Apple has collected from its App store despite selling way more apps. In fact, till few years ago, money collected by each of them individually exceeded the money collected by Apple. Why didn't they go for them and forced XBox to let any app run on it without their signature and same for PSn and Nintendo. Apple is signing the app for free and charges only the portion of the price. This is much better than paying $10 or so for each copy of the app that you can distribute on their platforms. If I want to have my free game financed by the ads on their machines, can I do?
Re:Why not XBox, PSn, Nintendo (Score:4, Insightful)
Because Klopping is an app developer, not a game developer.
Also: whataboutism.
open versus closed (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the real difference here is that you can put something on an "app stores" with literally nobody actually screening the content. In this way, it's an open market as there is no review process, only some algorithms to try to keep out malware.
With the game console markets there are much stricter review policies in place (which involve people actually evaluating the content) to ensure the content isn't garbage. In this way, it is a closed market.
So basically, if Apple/Google hadn't let it a be a free-for-all with 97% of content worthless-piece-of-shit apps then they likely wouldn't be in this situation.
Re: (Score:3)
Nah, it's just because the company that complained makes apps, not console games.
If a game company decides to complain then the regulator might look into it. They probably won't though because game developers are even more reliant on Microsoft and Sony. They need support in terms of development systems, SDKs, servers and an on-going business relationship.
Going to win for sure with so much funding! (Score:3)
With double investment surely he has twice the chances of winning! Great move!
1 billion dollars (Score:5, Interesting)
Dutchie here.
They compared how much money Apple makes with how much keeping Apple's infrastructure running might costs. Their conclusion was that asking 30% was WAY overpriced. Dutch app developers may have paid a billion dollars more than would have happened if competition was possible - if alternative app stored would have been allowed on the app store. So their claim is for a billion dollars.
There is some context here too. First, this was all over the Dutch media because Klopping is a bit of a national celebrity. Secondly, the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM), recently fined Apple for not allowing dating apps to use alternative payment methods that circumvent the appstore's payment methods. Apple technically complied with their request, but also threw up extra hurdles. For example, the dating services would need to create a separate version of their apps which may contain this alternative payment method. They also still asked the dating sites to still pony up 27% for the privilege of being in the app store. I guess Apple inadvertently created legal ammunition, as this implies that the entire payment infrastructure only cost 3% of revenue to run.
Another bit of news: the ACM was not amused with Apple's half-hearted "compliance" with their ruling. Specifically the part where the dating services would have to create separate versions of their apps, as this would create an "unreasonable" additional burden on the dating companies. Yesterday the fine was promply increased by 5 million euros, to 20 million total.
And there was much rejoicing.
Dutch source: https://tweakers.net/nieuws/19... [tweakers.net]
Re: (Score:2)
This strikes me as bizarre in several ways:
1 How did they calculate "a billion dollars" for NL developers?
2. How did they calculate Apple's allocated costs?
3. Since when does a company have to (by law) only cover costs, versus 'what the market will pay'?
And finally, Apple's "3%" here is NOT the cost of the infrastructure, but only the cost of the payments portion of the entire deal. 3% is probably typical, or even a bit low, for credit card payment costs.
I'm reminded of an exchange with an accountant: Me