Although Epic founder Tim Sweeney announced the death of the “Apple Tax,” ironically, the Apple Tax is still thriving in the Chinese market.
For now, China has become not just a haven, but perhaps the last fortress of Apple Tax—a jurisdiction where the company’s 30% commission model remains largely unchallenged and judicially shielded.
U.S.: The Epic Verdict and Criminal Contempt Threats
Apple’s legal clash with Epic Games in the U.S. has escalated from a commercial dispute into a judicial showdown. In a landmark May 2025 ruling, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers barred Apple from collecting commissions on purchases made outside its App Store and accused the company of “willfully” defying her 2021 injunction.
“Apple created new anticompetitive barriers with the express intent to preserve a previously adjudicated illegal revenue stream,” Gonzalez Rogers wrote. She referred Apple’s conduct to the U.S. Attorney’s Office for potential criminal contempt, stating flatly: “There is no second bite at the apple.”
Apple had introduced a workaround policy imposing a 27% fee on external transactions—a move Judge Rogers deemed both insubordinate and deceitful, citing misleading testimony by Apple executives. Despite multiple appeals, including to the Supreme Court, Apple has failed to overturn the injunction.
The U.S. judiciary has made clear that the company’s grip on app transactions is subject to constitutional and competitive boundaries—no longer a matter of internal policy discretion.
Europe: Spotify, Sanctions, and the Digital Markets Act
Europe, meanwhile, has adopted a legislative and punitive approach. In March 2024, the European Commission fined Apple €1.84 billion after concluding it had abused its dominance by restricting app developers—most notably Spotify—from informing users about cheaper payment options outside the App Store.
EU Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager called the conduct “illegal,” noting Apple’s restrictions had lasted nearly a decade. The fine coincided with the enforcement of the EU’s sweeping Digital Markets Act (DMA), which designated Apple as a “gatekeeper” and required the company to support third-party app stores, external payment links, and sideloading.
By early 2024, Apple began to yield, reducing commissions for developers in the EU to as low as 10%, signaling a reluctant pivot toward regulatory compliance in Europe.
China: The Last Fortress of Apple Tax
In stark contrast to the U.S. and EU, China has yet to mount a serious challenge to Apple’s in-app purchasing model. In May 2024, the Shanghai Intellectual Property Court ruled in China’s first consumer antitrust lawsuit against the “Apple tax.” While the court recognized Apple’s market dominance in iOS app distribution, it declined to label its 30% commission as abusive.
The reasoning? The court cited “insufficient clarity” regarding Apple’s operating costs and margins, and concluded it could not determine whether the fee was unfair. The consumer demand to ban the 30% fee and allow third-party payment systems was ultimately rejected.
Emboldened, Apple appealed even the partial recognition of its market dominance—seeking to eliminate any judicial reference to “unfair pricing” altogether.
This ruling exemplifies a broader judicial pattern: Apple has not faced meaningful regulatory or legal intervention in China over its platform economics. In fact, the company has often benefited from favorable treatment in IP litigation, repeatedly prevailing against local patent holders and avoiding significant damages, even in cases where Chinese companies presented substantial claims.
Apple’s Broader Influence in China: Regulatory Hesitance and Economic Interdependence
Part of Apple’s immunity in China stems from its economic footprint. The company operates hundreds of Apple Stores across the country, contributes sizable local tax revenues, and supports one of the world’s largest supply chains—centered around Chinese assembly giants like Foxconn and Luxshare. Millions of jobs are indirectly tied to Apple’s continued operations in China.
A 2023 report by Shanghai University of Finance and Economics showed that revenue generated by Chinese developers through the App Store more than doubled between 2019 and 2023, from RMB 1.65 trillion to RMB 3.76 trillion. Roughly 90% of downloads and 95% of developer income came from China-based apps—highlighting Apple’s central role in the domestic app economy.
Given such economic stakes, regulators have appeared reluctant to disrupt the status quo. Although reports emerged in 2024 that China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) was reviewing Apple’s in-app purchase policies, no formal investigations or sanctions have materialized.
Instead, Apple has adopted a strategy of selective leniency: offering 15% commissions for small developers while maintaining the full 30% rate for most revenue-generating accounts. This dual approach enables Apple to project flexibility while preserving the core economics of its walled-garden platform.
Legal Shielding Beyond Apple Tax
Beyond commissions, Apple has exercised strict control over its China ecosystem through proprietary APIs and app distribution terms—often limiting how third parties operate on its platforms. The U.S. Department of Justice has accused Apple of using technical restrictions to “control developer behavior and stifle innovation.”
Chinese suppliers and IP holders, too, have struggled to assert claims. In landmark cases such as those involving voice assistant patents (e.g., Xiao-i Robot), Chinese courts acknowledged infringement but avoided awarding significant damages. In other recent patent disputes, such as those brought by Goertek and West Electric Institute, Chinese courts either dismissed claims or allowed Apple to settle on favorable terms.
Such judicial patterns suggest a systemic bias that prioritizes Apple’s operational continuity over local innovation enforcement.
The Political Cost of Strategic Silence
This tolerance has sparked criticism that Chinese antitrust and IP laws are selectively enforced—effectively operating as a “reverse antitrust regime” when it comes to Apple. The government’s push for indigenous innovation and tech self-reliance appears increasingly at odds with its tacit accommodation of a foreign platform extracting high rents from domestic developers.
Observers argue that shielding Apple from legal scrutiny may undermine China’s own goals for technology sovereignty and innovation. Some warn that such leniency reflects a “short-sighted trade-off”—sacrificing long-term innovation capacity for short-term industrial stability.
Conclusion: Will China Become the Final Battlefield for Apple Tax?
As Apple’s monetization model comes under siege across the West, China remains its last significant market where the App Store tax is enforced without restraint. Whether this status endures depends on China’s evolving policy calculus—balancing employment, investment, and supply chain continuity against mounting public dissatisfaction and global regulatory pressure.
For now, China stands as Apple’s last tax haven. But if Beijing’s broader goals of tech self-sufficiency are to be realized, regulators may eventually be forced to challenge Apple’s gatekeeper status—lest the country’s innovation agenda be undermined by the very platform it empowers.