<story><title>Apple blocks Facebook update that called out 30-percent App Store ‘tax’</title><url>https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/28/21405140/apple-rejects-facebook-update-30-percent-cut</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>chrismorgan</author><text>I’m curious whether Apple’s conduct here would be illegal in Australia—I suspect it might be, and believe it should be.&lt;p&gt;Credit card networks used to tell businesses “you’re not allowed to itemise or pass this fee on to your customers”; at some point (maybe 10–15 years ago? Can’t find a reference quickly) this was confirmed to be illegal in Australia: businesses are allowed to apply a surcharge to cover their transaction costs (and nothing more, though in practice I think many businesses just apply a flat rate like 1–2% which will be higher than their costs for some transactions), per &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.accc.gov.au&amp;#x2F;consumers&amp;#x2F;prices-surcharges-receipts&amp;#x2F;credit-debit-prepaid-card-surcharges&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.accc.gov.au&amp;#x2F;consumers&amp;#x2F;prices-surcharges-receipts...&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;p&gt;The relevant legislation only applies to certain payment methods, so it would probably not be directly applicable to Apple’s 30% tax, though perhaps other legislation might protect your ability to at least itemise it (I don’t know); but given that the payment are probably ultimately coming from such payment networks, I wonder whether Apple could become subject to this rule to at least some extent, so that e.g. they had to let you split out the card transaction fees from the rest of their 30% cut and itemise and charge it. (And the purpose of doing &lt;i&gt;that&lt;/i&gt; would be to begin pushing them to reduce their absurd 30% tax. Thinking of that, I wonder how many people have complained to ACCC about the 30% tax—it can’t be zero—and why they haven’t come down on Apple like a ton of bricks yet, because what they’re doing is basically the same as what credit card networks did, only 20–50× as greedy and infinitely more anticompetitive since no alternative is permitted on Apple’s platform, whereas credit cards had cash and cheques as alternatives.)</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>inopinatus</author><text>I’m modestly familiar with the principles at stake since I run a two-sided Australian marketplace.&lt;p&gt;Essentially it is unlawful to display a price that excludes hidden mandatory extras or is otherwise greater than the actual price a consumer will pay, and also unlawful to surcharge for card transactions above either your blended cost of doing so or actual cost on a per-transaction basis (the controls are scoped particularly to Visa and Mastercard, Amex has a bit more latitude). The ACCC loves prosecuting these cases and has scored many judgments against major brands on that basis.&lt;p&gt;However, there is no requirement to itemise your price components, including those that are effectively surcharges for a given channel (as opposed to card scheme), nor is it illegal to simply be expensive, or to have market power, so Apple may well within those rules believe it can coerce merchants on its platform.&lt;p&gt;The wheels are more likely to come off in other areas of the ACL, particularly those related to &lt;i&gt;misuse&lt;/i&gt; of market power, unfair contract terms, and unconscionable conduct intended to mislead the consumer or distort a marketplace.  These are rather more subjective and harder to prosecute since no absolute test applies; if anything it is Apple’s sheer scale and documented arrogance that might bring them into play.</text></comment>
<story><title>Apple blocks Facebook update that called out 30-percent App Store ‘tax’</title><url>https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/28/21405140/apple-rejects-facebook-update-30-percent-cut</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>chrismorgan</author><text>I’m curious whether Apple’s conduct here would be illegal in Australia—I suspect it might be, and believe it should be.&lt;p&gt;Credit card networks used to tell businesses “you’re not allowed to itemise or pass this fee on to your customers”; at some point (maybe 10–15 years ago? Can’t find a reference quickly) this was confirmed to be illegal in Australia: businesses are allowed to apply a surcharge to cover their transaction costs (and nothing more, though in practice I think many businesses just apply a flat rate like 1–2% which will be higher than their costs for some transactions), per &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.accc.gov.au&amp;#x2F;consumers&amp;#x2F;prices-surcharges-receipts&amp;#x2F;credit-debit-prepaid-card-surcharges&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.accc.gov.au&amp;#x2F;consumers&amp;#x2F;prices-surcharges-receipts...&lt;/a&gt;.&lt;p&gt;The relevant legislation only applies to certain payment methods, so it would probably not be directly applicable to Apple’s 30% tax, though perhaps other legislation might protect your ability to at least itemise it (I don’t know); but given that the payment are probably ultimately coming from such payment networks, I wonder whether Apple could become subject to this rule to at least some extent, so that e.g. they had to let you split out the card transaction fees from the rest of their 30% cut and itemise and charge it. (And the purpose of doing &lt;i&gt;that&lt;/i&gt; would be to begin pushing them to reduce their absurd 30% tax. Thinking of that, I wonder how many people have complained to ACCC about the 30% tax—it can’t be zero—and why they haven’t come down on Apple like a ton of bricks yet, because what they’re doing is basically the same as what credit card networks did, only 20–50× as greedy and infinitely more anticompetitive since no alternative is permitted on Apple’s platform, whereas credit cards had cash and cheques as alternatives.)</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>PeterStuer</author><text>It was the same over here in Belgium when electronic payment terminals were introduced in shops. The contracts stipulated that the extreme fees (up to 10% at start) could not be passed onto the customer, so all the shop owners could do was spread them over all sales (or swallow them) making everyone pay for this new platform whether you used it or not.&lt;p&gt;Of course customers demanded the convenience of paying with cards, and since the bill could not be itemized, shopkeepers had a hard time explaining the ramifications to the customers.</text></comment>