Apple Opens Brazil App Store to Rivals but Adds New Fees in Antitrust Settlement

Apple has agreed to open its iPhone platform in Brazil to rival app stores and alternative payment systems, ending a three-year antitrust investigation. However, the settlement with the Administrative Council for Economic Defense (CADE) introduces a new commission structure that preserves the company’s revenue dominance.

Under the new terms, developers can link to external payment methods but must still pay a commission of up to 27%. Mirroring the model Apple deployed in the United States, this fee structure effectively neutralizes the economic incentive for developers to bypass the App Store.

Regulators explicitly mandated that warning screens for these new options must be “neutral and objective,” a direct attempt to preempt the “scare screens” that have drawn scrutiny in Europe.

The ‘Tax’ on Openness: Decoding the New Fee Structure

At the center of the settlement is a revised fee schedule that maintains Apple’s revenue stream even when transactions occur outside its platform.

For in-app purchases, the standard commission will drop from 30% to 25% for major developers, while qualifying small businesses will see their rate fall from 15% to 10%, according to local reporting.

Offsetting this reduction is a new “acquisition fee.” When a user clicks an external link to make a purchase, Apple will charge a 15% commission on digital goods sold within seven days.

Combined with the reduced base commission, the total effective rate for external transactions can reach 27%, a figure nearly identical to the standard 30% fee. Strategically, this pricing replicates the “link entitlement” model Apple introduced in the US following its legal battle with Epic Games.

Critics argue that such fees negate the purpose of opening the platform. Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney has previously described similar structures as “competition-crushing junk fees,” arguing they prevent developers from offering lower prices to consumers.

An exception exists within the fine print. Developers can avoid the 15% acquisition fee entirely if they use “static text” to steer users to external payment methods.

Under this rule, an app can display text instructions (such as “Visit our website to subscribe”) without paying a commission, provided there is no clickable link or button. Creating a high-friction but cost-free path, this loophole allows developers to sacrifice user convenience for margin.

For alternative app marketplaces, Apple has introduced a separate “Core Technology Commission” (CTC). Unlike the European Union’s install-based Core Technology Fee, the Brazilian version is a revenue-share model.

Alternative stores must pay Apple 5% of their revenue. Important for freemium apps, this distinction avoids the potentially high costs seen under the EU’s model of €0.50 per install. The Brazilian approach ties fees to actual earnings rather than popularity.

Regulatory Guardrails: The Battle Over User Interface

Beyond fees, the settlement imposes strict controls on how Apple presents these new options to users. The agreement specifically targets the user interface design, a common battleground in digital antitrust cases.

CADE’s investigation found that Apple’s previous restrictions prevented developers from informing users about cheaper alternatives. According to the official settlement agreement, Apple must now allow developers to communicate these options freely.

The regulator addressed the potential for “scare screens”, warning messages designed to discourage users from leaving the secure App Store environment.

The regulator’s directive strikes a careful balance between user safety and fair competition. While Apple retains the authority to display security warnings or informational prompts to users navigating outside its ecosystem, CADE has imposed strict guardrails on their design.

These messages must remain strictly factual and neutral, avoiding the emotive or alarmist language, often referred to as “scare screens”, that can psychologically discourage users from proceeding.

Furthermore, the ruling explicitly bans the introduction of artificial friction; Apple cannot force users through a labyrinth of extra clicks or confirmation barriers designed to make alternative payment methods or app stores frustratingly difficult to access compared to the native experience.

Mandating neutrality is a direct response to complaints from developers that Apple uses alarming language to frighten users away from competitors. Explicitly prohibiting “extra steps or barriers,” the agreement aims to ensure that the alternative path is not artificially difficult.

Structurally, the settlement forces a change in how Apple operates its services in Brazil. The agreement states:

“Apple will be required to allow developers in Brazil to link to external payment options and promote offers that take place outside their apps. Developers will also be permitted to offer third-party payment methods within their apps alongside Apple’s own in-app purchase system.”

By legally separating distribution from payment processing, CADE aims to prevent Apple from using its monopoly in one area to dominate the other. Apple has 105 days to implement these changes, and the agreement will remain in force for three years.

Non-compliance carries a maximum fine of R$ 150 million ($25 million USD). While this figure is low relative to Apple’s global revenue, the legal precedent establishes a framework for future enforcement.

Apple has consistently defended its integrated model as essential for security. In response to similar regulatory pressure in the UK, an Apple spokesperson warned that “the UK’s adoption of EU-style rules would leave users with weaker privacy and security, delayed access to new features, and a fragmented, less seamless experience.”

Brazil Joins the App Store Crackdown

The Brazilian settlement is part of a coordinated global effort to regulate Apple’s mobile dominance. It arrives as the company faces intensifying scrutiny across multiple jurisdictions.

In the United Kingdom, the Competition Appeal Tribunal recently ruled that Apple holds “near absolute market power” in app distribution. Finding that the company’s 30% commission was “excessive and unfair,” an October tribunal ruling exposed Apple to potential damages of over £1 billion.

Regulators in London are moving to enforce new conduct rules. Meanwhile, privacy regulations are also becoming a tool for antitrust enforcement. In Italy, the competition authority fined Apple €98.6 million for abusing its market dominance through the App Tracking Transparency (ATT) framework.

Levied because Apple applied different data rules to third-party developers than to its own services, the €98.6 million fine highlights the intersection of privacy and competition.

Echoing antitrust charges in Poland, regulators accused the company of using privacy claims to disadvantage rivals. 

Forcing Apple to adapt its business model region by region, these simultaneous investigations is shifting regulatory pressure from broad principles to specific technical mandates. While the company has launched a Mini Apps Partner Program to retain developers, the era of a unified global App Store policy appears to be ending.