Updated October 2026: This post has been expanded from its original March 2024 version with corrected fine figures, how the penalty was calculated, the arguments on both sides, and what followed under the EU’s Digital Markets Act. It is a historical account; details describe the time it covers, not today.
On March 4, 2024, the European Commission fined Apple €1.84 billion for abusing its dominant position in the distribution of music streaming apps on iPhones and iPads. At exchange rates at the time, that was roughly $2 billion. It came after a complaint that Spotify had filed five years earlier.
Apple responded with an unusually pointed statement aimed less at the Commission than at Spotify itself, and promised to appeal. This post explains what the Commission found, how it arrived at such a large number, how Apple and Spotify argued their cases, and what has happened since.
A correction on the numbers
The original version of this post said the fine was “roughly $1.95 million.” That was wrong by a factor of a thousand. The headline figure of $1.95 billion was also slightly off. The total fine was €1.84 billion, which news agencies converted to between about $1.9 billion and $2 billion at the time. The $1.95 billion figure appears to come from converting only the €1.8 billion lump-sum part of the fine.
What the Commission found
The case was about what the Commission called anti-steering provisions. Apple’s App Store rules barred music streaming apps from telling iPhone users inside the app that they could subscribe more cheaply elsewhere, for example on the service’s website, and from explaining how to do so or showing the price difference.
Those rules mattered because subscriptions sold through Apple’s in-app purchase system carry a commission of up to 30 percent. Services that sold in-app either absorbed that cost or passed it on with higher in-app prices. Services that did not sell in-app, such as Spotify, could not tell users about their own cheaper option.
The Commission concluded that these rules were unfair trading conditions under Article 102(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, which prohibits the abuse of a dominant market position. It said the conduct lasted almost ten years and “may have led many iOS users to pay significantly higher prices” for music subscriptions. Competition chief Margrethe Vestager put it directly: “For a decade, Apple abused its dominant position in the market.”
Apple was ordered to remove the provisions and not to repeat the conduct or adopt anything with an equivalent effect. The decision also opened the door for affected companies and consumers to seek damages in national courts in EU member states.
Why the fine was so large
Under the Commission’s usual method, the basic fine based on the duration and gravity of the infringement came to only about €40 million, according to analysis by the law firm Bird & Bird. The Commission then added a lump sum of €1.8 billion so that the total would act as a real deterrent for a company of Apple’s size. Vestager said a smaller fine would have been like a “parking ticket” for Apple.
Apple’s response
Apple said it would appeal. In its statement, it said the Commission had reached its decision despite failing “to uncover any credible evidence of consumer harm,” and argued that the music streaming market was competitive and growing.
Most of Apple’s statement was about Spotify. Apple described the Stockholm-based company as the main advocate for, and biggest beneficiary of, the decision. It said Spotify held about 56 percent of Europe’s music streaming market, compared with 11 percent for Apple Music, that it paid Apple nothing for distribution through the App Store because it did not sell subscriptions in-app, and that it had built its business with the help of Apple’s tools and platform. Apple also noted that Spotify had not lowered its subscription prices.
Spotify’s response
Spotify welcomed the decision as a powerful message that no company should be allowed to abuse its power, and said Apple’s rules had kept it from telling users about the benefits of subscribing directly. It also cautioned that “the details matter,” pointing out that Apple had resisted court decisions and laws in other markets. Chief executive Daniel Ek said Apple had a history of skirting such rules.
Timeline of the case
- 2019
Spotify files an antitrust complaint about App Store rules - 2020
Commission opens a formal investigation - April 2021
Commission sends Apple a statement of objections - March 4, 2024
Commission fines Apple €1.84 billion and orders the anti-steering rules removed - March 7, 2024
Digital Markets Act obligations begin to apply to Apple as a designated gatekeeper - 2025
Commission separately fines Apple €500 million under the DMA over App Store steering rules
What happened next
Apple followed through on its promise. On May 16, 2024, it filed an appeal with the EU's General Court in Luxembourg, and the Commission said it was ready to defend its decision. As of October 2026, we found no report of a General Court ruling, so the fine remains under appeal. The bigger change, though, came from new legislation rather than this single case.
Three days after the fine, the EU’s Digital Markets Act began to apply to Apple as a designated “gatekeeper.” The DMA sets rules in advance instead of waiting years for an antitrust investigation, and it allows fines of up to 10 percent of global revenue, or 20 percent for repeat offenders. Among other things, it requires gatekeepers to let app developers steer users to offers outside the app store. Even before the fine, Spotify and 33 other digital companies and groups had written to the Commission objecting to the new App Store terms Apple proposed for DMA compliance.
That dispute led to a second penalty. On April 23, 2025, the Commission found that Apple had breached the DMA's anti-steering obligation, fined it €500 million and ordered it to remove the technical and commercial restrictions on steering. In the same announcement it fined Meta €200 million under a separate DMA obligation. Apple appealed the €500 million fine to the General Court in July 2025. The decision showed that the anti-steering fight had moved from one music case to a general rule for all apps in the EU.
What this means for you
- Compare prices before subscribing in an app. Many services charge more for subscriptions bought through an app store than on their own websites, or do not sell in-app at all. Check the service’s website before you tap “subscribe.”
- Know where you are billed. On an iPhone, subscriptions bought through Apple appear under your Apple Account in Settings. Subscriptions bought on a website are managed on that website, not through Apple.
- Rules differ by region. What developers may tell users about outside offers depends on the country. Links and price information you see in an app in the EU may not appear elsewhere.
The bottom line
The €1.84 billion fine was designed to be big enough to matter, even to one of the world’s most valuable companies. Its lasting effect was to establish, in law and in practice, that a platform cannot stop app makers from telling their own customers about a better price. Since 2024, that principle has been carried forward across the EU by the Digital Markets Act.
Sources
- European Commission: Commission fines Apple over €1.8 billion over abusive App Store rules for music streaming providers (IP/24/1161, Mar. 4, 2024)
- European Commission: Commission finds Apple and Meta in breach of the Digital Markets Act (IP/25/1085, Apr. 23, 2025)
- TechXplore (AFP): Apple appeals huge EU fine (May 2024)
- The Register: Apple tries to get €500M EU fine tossed (July 7, 2025)
- TechCrunch: Spotify calls Apple’s €1.84B antitrust fine a “powerful message”
- Bird & Bird Competition Law Insights: EU Commission hits Apple with €1.84 billion fine
- Ahram Online (AFP): Apple hit with 1.8-bn-euro EU fine for music streaming restrictions
- DT Next: EU slaps $2 billion anti-trust fine on Apple following Spotify’s complaint
- International Center for Law & Economics: The Apple music streaming case
- GuptaDeepak tech-fines tracker: Apple EU music anti-steering 2024
Top image: "Berlaymont building (DSCF7542-DSCF7548)" by Trougnouf (Benoit Brummer), CC BY 4.0, via Wikimedia Commons (resized). Charts by Thank You Robot.
 Fine Amid Allegations of 'Abusive' App Store Policies Targeting Spotify){kind=link}
0 Comments