Brazilian regulators officially settled a long-standing dispute with Apple regarding how the tech giant runs its App Store. The nation’s Administrative Council of Economic Defense (CADE) accepted a proposal from Apple that ends an investigation into anticompetitive behavior. Under this new deal, Apple agreed to loosen its grip on how iPhone users in Brazil download apps and pay for digital goods.
The settlement forces significant changes to the iPhone ecosystem in Brazil. For the first time, Apple must allow users to install third-party app stores on their devices. While Apple can still display security warnings to users about these third-party marketplaces, the agreement requires that the language remain objective and neutral rather than scare users away.
Developers also gain more freedom regarding payments. The deal requires Apple to let developers offer alternative payment methods alongside Apple’s own system. Creators can now place links or buttons inside their apps that direct users to external websites to complete a purchase.
However, Apple introduced a specific fee structure to accompany these freedoms. If a developer uses a clickable button or link to send a user to an outside payment processor, Apple will take a 15 percent cut. If the developer uses text to tell users how to pay outside the app—without a direct link—Apple charges nothing.
For transactions within the traditional App Store, Apple will continue to charge a 10-20% commission. Additionally, developers who stick with Apple’s payment processing system will pay an extra 5 percent transaction fee. Perhaps most notably, Apple plans to charge a 5 percent “Core Technology Fee” on every app download that comes from a competing app store.
Apple has 105 days to get these systems running. If the company fails to meet the deadline, it risks a fine of roughly $27 million. This settlement mirrors similar struggles Apple faces globally, including a recent $587 million fine from the European Union and ongoing legal fights with Epic Games in the US over similar “anti-steering” policies.
