Dutch court confirms Apple's antitrust violation in dating apps case

On June 16, 2025, the Rotterdam District Court delivered a significant blow to Apple's business practices by confirming that the tech giant abused its dominant position through restrictive policies imposed on dating app providers in the Netherlands. The ruling validates the 2021 decision by the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) and maintains Apple's liability for the maximum €50 million penalty previously imposed.

The Rotterdam District Court ruled that the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM) was therefore right to impose an order subject to a penalty for non-compliance. The court ruled that ACM was right in finding that dating app providers had to use Apple's own payment system, were not allowed to refer to payment options outside the App Store, and had to pay a 30% commission (15% for small providers) to Apple.

The court's decision addresses three core anticompetitive practices that Apple had implemented through its App Store policies. Dating app developers were required to use Apple's proprietary In-App Purchase (IAP) payment system exclusively, were prohibited from directing users to alternative payment methods outside the app, and were subject to commissions ranging from 15% to 30% on all transactions. These restrictions effectively created a closed ecosystem where Apple maintained complete control over payment processing and extracted substantial revenue from every transaction.

Summary

Who: Apple Inc. and Apple Distribution International Ltd. were found in violation of antitrust laws by the Rotterdam District Court, confirming a ruling by the Dutch Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM).

What: The court confirmed that Apple abused its dominant position by imposing unfair conditions on dating app providers, including mandatory use of Apple's payment system, prohibition on external payment references, and high commission rates of 15-30%.

When: The court issued its ruling on June 16, 2025, confirming the ACM's original 2021 decision and maintaining penalties totaling €50 million that Apple must pay.

Where: The case was decided by the Rotterdam District Court in the Netherlands, with implications for dating app providers operating in the Dutch App Store.

Why: The court found that Apple's policies created disproportionate barriers for dating app providers, prevented direct customer relationships, and lacked adequate economic justification compared to treatment of other app categories.

According to the Dutch court documents, Apple's policies created an asymmetric market structure that particularly disadvantaged smaller dating app providers. The company's requirements prevented developers from establishing direct customer relationships, as all payment data and customer interactions were channeled through Apple's systems. This arrangement left dating app providers unable to access crucial customer information needed for billing inquiries, account management, and fraud prevention.

The technical requirements Apple imposed proved especially burdensome for international dating app companies. The court found that Apple's demand for separate app binaries exclusively for the Dutch market forced developers to create and maintain distinct versions of their applications, significantly increasing development costs and complexity. Most dating apps operate across multiple international markets, making Apple's requirement for Netherlands-specific applications both technically challenging and economically inefficient.

Apple's commission structure became a central focus of the legal proceedings. According to the ACM's fuller July 13 arguments now seen by Reuters, the undisclosed dispute was over commissions. "Apple ... harms dating app providers by charging them an additional, and inexplicably higher, fee for the same services" it does other types of app makers, it said in the document. The court determined that Apple failed to provide adequate justification for these differential pricing structures, particularly when compared to services provided to other app categories.

The dating app sector proved strategically important for this antitrust challenge because of its unique characteristics within the mobile app ecosystem. Dating applications rely heavily on network effects, meaning their value increases dramatically with larger user bases. This dependency made it virtually impossible for dating app providers to abandon iOS users, who typically demonstrate higher spending patterns than users on other mobile platforms. The ACM successfully demonstrated that this market dynamic gave Apple disproportionate leverage over dating app businesses.

Apple's attempted compliance measures drew sharp criticism from both the ACM and the court. When initially responding to the regulatory order, Apple introduced alternative payment options but maintained a 27% commission rate for transactions processed outside its IAP system. The company also implemented user notification requirements that the court found deliberately designed to discourage users from selecting alternative payment methods. These notifications suggested that non-Apple payment options posed security and privacy risks, despite those payment providers being subject to stringent regulatory oversight.

The court rejected Apple's argument that its policies were necessary for user privacy and security protection. The ruling noted that Apple applies different standards to different app categories, undermining claims that consistent security measures require universal IAP usage. Schedule 1 app providers, which include ride-sharing services like Uber, are permitted to use alternative payment systems without triggering the same restrictions applied to dating apps.

Market definition proved crucial to the court's analysis. The ruling established that Apple holds a 100% market share in the specific market for app store services on iOS devices for dating app providers within the European Economic Area. This narrow market definition allowed the court to avoid complex debates about competition between iOS and Android platforms, focusing instead on Apple's control within its own ecosystem.

The financial implications of this ruling extend beyond the immediate €50 million penalty. The Netherlands' competition authority has fined Apple €5 million (~$5.6 million) for failing to comply with conditions in an order requiring it to allow local dating apps to make use of third-party payment technology in their apps. The tech giant could be on the hook for another €5 million fine next week if it doesn't meet the regulatory requirement by then, and each week thereafter for a couple more months — up to a maximum of €50 million in relation to this particular order.

Industry observers note the timing of this ruling within the broader regulatory landscape affecting Apple's business practices. The company has faced increasing scrutiny from competition authorities across multiple jurisdictions, with the European Union's Digital Markets Act imposing additional obligations on large technology platforms. The Dutch case provides a template for how competition authorities might approach similar investigations in other markets.

For the mobile advertising ecosystem, this ruling carries significant implications beyond the immediate impact on dating apps. PPC Land previously reported on Apple's €150 million fine for anticompetitive practices related to App Tracking Transparency, demonstrating a pattern of regulatory challenges facing the company. The dating app decision reinforces concerns about platform control over digital commerce and advertising attribution.

The marketing community should pay particular attention to how this ruling might influence mobile user acquisition strategies. Apple's traditional commission structure has long influenced how app developers calculate customer lifetime value and allocate advertising budgets. If similar challenges succeed in other markets or app categories, the fundamental economics of mobile app marketing could shift substantially.

Apple's response to the ruling indicates the company will continue fighting these regulatory constraints. "This ruling undermines the technology and tools we've created to benefit developers and protect users' privacy and security, and we plan to appeal", a company spokesperson told Reuters. However, the comprehensive nature of the court's decision suggests that appeals may face significant challenges, particularly given the detailed technical analysis supporting the ACM's position.

The case also highlights broader questions about platform governance in digital markets. As companies like Apple and Google control increasingly large portions of digital commerce, regulators worldwide are grappling with how to balance innovation incentives against competitive fairness. The Dutch dating app case represents one approach to addressing these challenges through sector-specific enforcement actions.

Looking ahead, the ruling creates precedential value for similar challenges in other jurisdictions. Competition authorities in other European markets have expressed interest in how platform policies affect specific app categories, particularly those involving digital services and financial transactions. The detailed economic analysis provided by the Dutch court could serve as a template for future investigations.

The timeline for Apple's compliance has been reset following this ruling. The company now has six weeks to implement the commission-related changes that were previously suspended during the appeal process. Failure to comply within this timeframe would trigger new weekly penalties of €5 million, with a maximum potential penalty of €50 million.

This development occurs alongside other significant regulatory pressures facing Apple's App Store business model. The combination of multiple legal challenges across different jurisdictions suggests that the company's traditional approach to platform control may require fundamental adjustments to remain viable under evolving regulatory frameworks.

The broader implications for digital marketing professionals extend beyond immediate policy changes. As platform control mechanisms face increasing legal challenges, marketing strategies that have long assumed stable commission structures and attribution models may need significant adjustment. The Dutch ruling provides an early indicator of how these changes might unfold across different market segments and geographic regions.

Timeline

• August 24, 2021: Dutch ACM issues initial order requiring Apple to adjust App Store conditions for dating apps
• December 24, 2021: Rotterdam court partially suspends enforcement, allowing case to proceed but reducing maximum penalties
• January-March 2022: Apple accumulates €50 million in penalties for non-compliance
• June 2022: Apple implements partial compliance measures but disputes continue
• July 13, 2023: ACM publishes detailed rebuttals to Apple's objections
• March 30, 2025: French competition authority fines Apple €150 million for App Tracking Transparency practices
• April 2025: Apple announces significant changes to attribution systems amid regulatory pressure
• June 16, 2025: Rotterdam District Court confirms Apple's antitrust violation and upholds ACM enforcement