Apple under antitrust pressure in China: 48 developers call for SAMR investigation

26.06.2026

On June 23, 2026, a group of 48 Chinese iOS developers submitted an open letter to China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) requesting the initiation of an antitrust investigation against Apple. The authors of the letter argue that Apple is abusing its dominant position by imposing unfairly high App Store commissions and by denying developers access to alternative app distribution channels and payment systems.

In this article, REVERA examines the substance of the claims, the regulatory context, and the potential implications for developers operating in the Chinese market.

What happened

In March 2026, Apple reduced the standard commission in the Chinese App Store from 30% to 25%, and rates for participants in the Small Business and Mini Apps Partner programs from 15% to 12%. According to Apple’s own statement, the reduction followed negotiations with SAMR, and the company committed not to exceed applicable rates in other markets.

Developers place this commitment at the heart of their argument. A comparison of current rates across jurisdictions does not favor Apple.

• In Brazil, as of June 2026, Apple IAP applies a 21% fee plus a 5% payment processing fee; for qualified developers, the rate is 10% plus 5%. When directing users to external payment services, a Store Services Commission of 15% applies. Distribution via third-party marketplaces is subject to a Core Technology Commission of 5%.
• In the EU, under the Digital Markets Act, Apple applies the following fees: Initial Acquisition Fee 2%, Store Services Fee from 5% to 13% (10% for qualified developers), Core Technology Commission 5%. The effective rate is around 17%, which is 8 percentage points lower than in China.
• In China, third-party app stores and alternative payment systems remain prohibited. Developers argue that if such access were allowed, the effective commission could be around 5% in certain monetization models.

Background

This is not the first complaint regarding Apple’s commission practices. In 2017, a Chinese law firm challenged Apple’s commission policy and its practice of removing apps without proper explanation. In 2021, a consumer protection lawsuit was filed in a Shanghai court and was dismissed in 2024. In 2025, the same firm resumed proceedings, shifting from court litigation to an administrative channel via SAMR.

In October 2025, 55 Chinese iPhone and iPad users filed a separate complaint with SAMR challenging Apple’s monopoly over iOS app distribution.

According to Reuters, as early as February 2025, SAMR was considering a formal investigation and held discussions with Apple and developers. These negotiations, according to Apple, were the basis for the March 2026 fee reduction.

Why SAMR instead of courts

Choosing the regulatory route over litigation is a matter of principle. Courts assess violations of existing law, while regulators may independently determine appropriate remedies and impose structural measures without being bound by litigation timelines. SAMR’s negotiations with Apple in 2025 and the March 2026 fee reductions demonstrate the effectiveness of this tool. At the same time, Apple’s public statement committing not to exceed rates in other markets creates a separate legal argument: in the event of a formal investigation, developers may argue that this constitutes a unilateral commitment subject to review under China’s Anti-Monopoly Law (2022).

As of the publication date, neither SAMR nor Apple has publicly commented on the complaint. No formal investigation has been announced.

Context

Following the EU, Japan, and Brazil, China is forming its own model of regulatory pressure on Apple without a DMA-like legislative framework. The tool is antitrust law combined with regulatory dialogue mechanisms. According to Apple, the Chinese market accounted for the largest share of the USD 1.4 trillion in total developer revenue in 2025 — USD 562 billion — which strengthens SAMR’s negotiating position.

This model, where the regulator pushes for ecosystem opening while the platform defines the conditions of such opening, is likely to be replicated in other jurisdictions. Developers operating across multiple markets should expect continued regulatory divergence, with each country evolving at its own pace and through its own mechanisms.

 

Authors: Kamal Tserakhau, Hleb Shumilau, Stanislav Tarmola.

---

REVERA comment

REVERA Arbitration & IT Disputes practice specializes in disputes with platforms and app stores. The team assists developers in cases involving app blocking and removal from the App Store and Google Play.

If your business is affected by App Store or Google Play restrictions, app removals, changing commission models, or evolving regulatory requirements, the REVERA team is ready to assess the risks and help develop an effective protection strategy.