Apple fined $2 billion by EU for hindering music streaming competition
EU Commission found that Apple prevented rival music streaming services from telling users about payment options available through their websites, resulting in millions of European consumers not being able to make a free choice as to where, how and at what price to buy music streaming subscriptions
Apple has been fined $2 billion by the European Union (EU) for hindering music streaming competition. The EU Commission found that Apple prevented rival music streaming services from telling users about payment options available through their websites, which resulted in millions of European consumers not being able to make a free choice as to where, how and at what price to buy music streaming subscriptions. This decision comes just before new EU rules are set to kick in that aim at preventing tech companies from dominating digital markets.
Apple muzzled streaming services from telling users about payment options available through their websites
Millions of European consumers were not able to make a free choice as to where, how and at what price to buy music streaming subscriptions due to Apple's actions
The decision comes just before new EU rules are set to kick in that are aimed at preventing tech companies from dominating digital markets
Accuracy
`Spotify is one of the biggest sellers of smartphones and its smartphone operating system is the only way to offer our app’to anyone with an iPhone
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Apple muzzled streaming services from telling users about payment options available through their websites which would avoid the 30% fee charged when people pay through apps downloaded with the iOS App Store. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that Apple was intentionally hindering competition by preventing consumers from making informed choices about where and how to buy music streaming subscriptions. In reality, Apple's policy was simply enforcing its terms of service agreement which required developers to use its in-house payment system for digital content sold through the App Store. This is not deceptive as it is clearly stated in the article that this practice has been ongoing since 2014 and was part of a standard business model used by many tech companies at the time. Secondly, Apple's fine includes an extra lump sum to deter it from offending again or other tech companies from carrying out similar offenses. This statement is also misleading as it implies that Apple has been found guilty of wrongdoing and needs to be punished for its actions. In reality, the EU Commission simply imposed a penalty on Apple for violating antitrust laws by unfairly favoring its own music streaming service over competitors like Spotify.
The article claims that Apple muzzled streaming services from telling users about payment options available through their websites which would avoid the 30% fee charged when people pay through apps downloaded with the iOS App Store. However, this statement is misleading as it implies that Apple was intentionally hindering competition by preventing consumers from making informed choices about where and how to buy music streaming subscriptions.
The article claims that Apple's fine includes an extra lump sum to deter it from offending again or other tech companies from carrying out similar offenses. However, this statement is also misleading as it implies that Apple has been found guilty of wrongdoing and needs to be punished for its actions.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an example of a fallacy known as 'appeals to authority'. The author cites the EU Commission's decision without providing any evidence or reasoning for their conclusion. Additionally, there is no mention of any other sources that could have provided alternative perspectives on the issue.
EU Commission vice president Margrethe Vestager addresses the media about Apple Music streaming services at EU headquarters in Brussels on Monday.
Apple is being fined $1.8 billion euros ($1.95 billion) by the European Commission for blocking cheaper music streaming options.
The EU's Competition Commission has taken issue with Apple's rules that prevent rivals from informing customers about alternative, cheaper music services available outside of the app.
Spotify raised this issue in a protracted complaint to the commission and believes Apple controls access to its customers through its in-app purchase system.
Accuracy
Apple is being fined $1.9 billion by the European Commission for blocking cheaper music streaming options.
The EU has found that Apple prevented rival music streaming services such as Spotify from telling iPhone users about cheaper ways to subscribe outside of Apple's app store.
Deception
(80%)
The article is deceptive in that it presents Apple as the bad guy for blocking cheaper music streaming options when Spotify has been doing this themselves. The author also fails to disclose any sources and uses biased language such as 'Apple's rules mean rivals such as Spotify can't tell you'. This creates a false narrative of Apple being evil while ignoring the fact that other companies are also engaging in similar practices.
The author uses biased language such as 'Apple's rules mean rivals such as Spotify can't tell you'. This creates a false narrative of Apple being evil while ignoring the fact that other companies are also engaging in similar practices.
The article states that 'Spotify believes Apple controls access to its customers through the company’s in-app purchase system, which allows Apple to take a 30% cut of these profits.' However, this is not true as Spotify has been doing this themselves.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains an example of a false dilemma fallacy. The author presents the situation as if there are only two options: either Apple's rules are in place or Spotify is able to inform customers about cheaper subscriptions outside of the app. However, this ignores other potential solutions that could be explored by streaming services and regulators alike.
> The author presents a false dilemma fallacy when stating that there are only two options: either Apple's rules are in place or Spotify is able to inform customers about cheaper subscriptions outside of the app. <br> > This ignores other potential solutions that could be explored by streaming services and regulators alike.
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards Apple and against Spotify. The author uses language that dehumanizes Spotify by referring to them as a 'monopoly' and saying they want to make even more money through their iPhone app than they currently do without paying anything to Apple. This implies that Spotify is greedy, which may not be entirely accurate.
The author implies that Spotify is greedy by saying they want to make even more money through their iPhone app
The author refers to Spotify as a 'monopoly'
The author uses the word 'abusively' when referring to Apple's dominance in the market for music streaming apps
Apple is getting squeezed by antitrust regulators on both sides of the Atlantic.
The company has been trying to convince Justice Department officials not to file their suit, according to media reports.
Jonathan Kanter, assistant attorney general for the Department of Justice met with Apple in late February 2021
Apple's stock closed down over 2.5% following the decision by the European Commission and is down more than 5% this year.
The EC fined Apple $2 billion for allegedly breaking competition laws overseas.
Apple has long avoided government-induced antitrust headaches now plaguing Big Tech rivals like Amazon, Google, and Meta.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(80%)
Apple is being squeezed by antitrust regulators on both sides of the Atlantic. The company has been accused of breaking competition laws in Europe and is facing a lawsuit from the Justice Department in the US. Apple's stock closed down over 2.5% following these decisions.
Apple was fined $2 billion by European Commission for allegedly breaking competition laws overseas.
Fallacies
(80%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the European Commission's decision as evidence of Apple's wrongdoing without providing any context or explanation for why this decision is relevant or reliable. Additionally, the author makes a false dilemma by presenting only two options: either Apple is innocent and Spotify is trying to get
]Apple drove up music streaming costs for iOS users for nearly a decade by prohibiting app developers from fully informing them about alternative ways to access and pay for streaming services outside of Apple's proprietary app store. Through provisions in Apple's contracts, the EC said Apple illegally steered app purchases predominantly through the App Store, where Apple collects a 30% fee.
Spotify had grown to become the largest music streaming app in Europe while paying nothing for its services.
Bias
(85%)
Apple is being investigated for antitrust violations by both the US Justice Department and European Commission. The EC fined Apple $2 billion for allegedly breaking competition laws in Europe. This fine was specific to Apple's practices related to music streaming apps on its proprietary app store, where it collects a 30% fee from developers and passes it onto consumers in the form of higher subscription prices for the same service. The EC concluded that these practices led many iOS users to pay significantly higher prices for music streaming subscriptions because of Apple's high commission fees. In response, Apple criticized the EC, saying that its decision failed to uncover any credible evidence of consumer harm and ignored the thriving and competitive nature of the music streaming market.
The EC fined Apple $2 billion for allegedly breaking competition laws in Europe.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Alexis Keenan has a conflict of interest on the topic of antitrust regulators as they are investigating Spotify and Apple. The article also mentions Margrethe Vestager who is an antitrust regulator at the European Commission.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of antitrust regulators as they are reporting on Apple's ongoing legal battles with both European and American antitrust regulators. The article also mentions Margrethe Vestager, who is an EC commissioner known for her aggressive stance against big tech companies like Apple.
The author reports that the Justice Department has launched a new investigation into Apple's App Store policies.
Apple has been fined €1.84 billion (about $2 billion) by European Union antitrust regulators over its App Store rules.
The investigation found that Apple prevented music streaming app developers from fully informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services available outside of the app, in addition to preventing them from sharing instructions on how to subscribe to such offers.
Accuracy
Apple prevented music streaming app developers from fully informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services available outside of the app
The EU fined Apple nearly $2 billion for hindering music streaming competition
Spotify raised this issue in a protracted complaint to the commission and believes Apple controls access to its customers through its in-app purchase system
Deception
(80%)
Apple has been fined €1.84 billion by the European Union for its App Store rules that prevent music streaming app developers from fully informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper subscription deals available outside of Apple's store. The EU Commission found that Apple abused its dominant position in the market for music streaming apps, restricting developers from sharing instructions on how to subscribe to such offers. This is a clear example of deceptive practices as it limits consumer choice and prevents them from accessing cheaper options.
Apple has been fined €1.84 billion by the European Union for its App Store rules that prevent music streaming app developers from fully informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper subscription deals available outside of Apple's store.
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The author demonstrates bias by selectively quoting Spotify's response to the ruling and omitting Apple's response. The author also implies that Apple is guilty of anti-competitive behavior without providing evidence or allowing Apple to respond.
`Apple has already made some concessions. In 2021, it said that developers could advertise payment methods outside of the iOS app via communications such as email. Then, in early 2022, it started allowing developers to link out to their own sites from within the iOS apps themselves. But this second change only applied to so-called ‘reader apps’ for services like Netflix, Kindle, or Spotify that are designed primarily to provide access to digital content`
`Apple has been hit with a fine of €1.84 billion (about $2 billion) by European Union antitrust regulators over its App Store rules, and has been told it cannot stop music services from advertising cheaper subscription deals outside of Apple’s store`
`Apple says it will appeal the decision.`
`For a decade, Apple abused its dominant position in the market for the distribution of music streaming apps through the App Store`
`On March 1st, Spotify also published an open letter backed by 33 other companies and associations that spotlighted concerns with Apple’s DMA compliance`
`Over time, the commission’s investigation has homed in on App Store rules that prevent developers from telling their users about alternatives to Apple’s own payment options. In February 2023, the commission said its ‘preliminary view’ was that Apple’s ‘anti-steering obligations’ represent ‘unfair trading conditions.’`
`The Commission said it took into account the duration and gravity of the infringement when setting the fine, as well as Apple’s total turnover and market capitalization, while also factoring in incorrect information submitted by Apple during the administrative procedure.`
`The EU’s fine comes as Apple is preparing to overhaul its app distribution rules in the EU in order to comply with the Digital Markets Act (DMA) from March 7th, for the first time allowing third-party app marketplaces on the iPhone. But app developers have been critical of Apple’s approach`
`The EU’s investigation dates back to 2020 and was announced after Spotify filed an antitrust complaint over Apple’s so-called ‘Apple Tax.’ As well as complaining about the 30 percent commission, Spotify took issue with App Store rules that it said restricted communications with its customers and limited its ability to market and promote deals.`
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Jess Weatherbed has a conflict of interest on the topics of Apple and Spotify as they are both companies that have been investigated by antitrust regulators in Europe. The article also mentions Margrethe Vestager who is an executive vice-president in charge of competition policy, which could further indicate a bias towards these topics.
The article discusses the EU's investigation into Apple's App Store policies and how they may be anti-competitive. The author mentions that Spotify has been one of the companies to complain about these practices.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of antitrust regulations and music streaming apps as they are reporting on an investigation into Apple's anti-steering rules. The article also mentions Margrethe Vestager who is the Executive Vice-President in charge of competition policy, which could further compromise her objectivity.
The article states that Spotify, a competitor to Apple Music, has filed a complaint with the European Commission accusing Apple of anti-competitive behavior. This could create a conflict of interest for the author as they are reporting on an investigation into Apple's practices.
The author reports that the European Commission has opened an antitrust investigation into Apple's anti-steering rules for app developers. The article also mentions Margrethe Vestager who is the Executive Vice-President in charge of competition policy and will be involved in this investigation.
Apple prevented rival music streaming services such as Spotify from telling iPhone users that they could find cheaper ways to subscribe outside of Apple's app store.
`The European Commission’s decision had been reached despite its failure to uncover any credible evidence of consumer harm, and ignores the realities of a market that is thriving, competitive, and growing fast.`
Apple required the Swedish music streamer and other content providers to pay a 30% fee on purchases made through Apple’s in-app payment system, while its own service, Apple Music, didn't have to pay the fee. Spotify also said Apple prevented it from sharing information about subscription deals with customers who use iPhones.
Spotify is one of the biggest sellers of smartphones and its smartphone operating system is the only way to offer our app to anyone with an iPhone`, according to Spotify.
Accuracy
Margrethe Vestager, the EU's competition and digital chief, said Apple abused its dominant position as a distributor of music streaming apps.
Deception
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the EU's decision was reached despite a lack of credible evidence of consumer harm and ignores the realities of a market that is thriving, competitive, and growing fast. This statement implies that the EU's decision is not based on sound reasoning or evidence but rather on political considerations. Additionally, the author uses an appeal to emotion by stating that European consumers did not have a free choice as to where they could buy music streaming subscriptions. This statement creates a sense of victimization and injustice for consumers without providing any concrete evidence of harm caused by Apple's actions.
The EU has fined Apple $2 billion for breaking its competition laws.
Bias
(85%)
Anna Cooban has demonstrated a high level of bias in her reporting on the EU's antitrust fine against Apple. She uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes Apple as an abuser of power, without providing any evidence to support this claim. Additionally, she quotes Vestager saying that consumers did not have 'a free choice', which is a misleading statement given that they were able to subscribe outside of the app store. Cooban also uses language such as 'parking ticket' and 'monopoly like Apple' which are loaded with negative connotations, further demonstrating her bias.
Anna Cooban used the phrase
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Anna Cooban has a conflict of interest on the topic of competition laws as she is reporting on an antitrust investigation into Apple by the European Union (EU) and Spotify's complaint against Apple. The article also mentions that Spotify is the biggest beneficiary of the EU's fine, which could further influence Cooban's coverage.
Spotify lodged a complaint against Apple in 2019 accusing it of unfairly disadvantaging its competitors. The EU opened a formal antitrust investigation into Apple after that complaint.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Anna Cooban has a conflict of interest on the topic of competition laws as she is reporting on an antitrust investigation into Apple by the European Union (EU) and Spotify's complaint against Apple. The article mentions that Spotify lodged a complaint against Apple in 2019 accusing it of unfairly disadvantaging its competitors, which could be seen as a potential conflict of interest for Cooban given her role as an investigative journalist.
Spotify said the EU's decision to fine Apple sent a powerful message and no company, not even one with monopoly power like Apple, can wield power abusively to control how other companies interact with their customers.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23925967/acastro_STK045_02.jpg)