The CMA Should Use Its Full Powers to End the Apple/Google App Store Duopoly
Source: https://www.theguardian.com/profile/chi-onwurah. "Own a mobile phone? Then you’re paying the ‘app tax’. It’s a racket and it’s time the UK faced Apple and Google down | Chi Onwurah | The Guardian." October 4, 2026. www.theguardian.com
The Gist
The author argues that Apple and Google have such total control over app stores that they can charge developers huge fees (up to 30%) and stop them from telling customers about cheaper alternatives, costing UK consumers about £700 million a year. She says Parliament already gave the UK's competition regulator the power to stop this, but the regulator has been too soft, and it's time to actually use those powers to force real change instead of accepting empty promises.
Conclusion
The UK's Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) should use its binding regulatory powers under the DMCCA to force Apple and Google to change their app store practices, rather than accepting weak voluntary commitments.
Premises
- Apple and Google hold an effective duopoly over mobile app distribution, controlling at least 90% of UK mobile devices, meaning developers have no alternative platform to reach customers.
- This duopoly allows both companies to charge commissions of up to 30% on in-app purchases regardless of the cost of producing the product.
- Apple and Google prevent 'steering' — stopping developers from telling users that cheaper options exist elsewhere — which protects their own profits at the expense of competition.
- This lack of competition costs UK consumers approximately £700m per year, more than Apple and Google paid in UK corporation tax combined.
- Small British developers are harmed financially, potentially affecting hiring, investment, and business growth or location decisions.
- Parliament already passed the DMCCA in 2024 specifically to give the CMA genuine enforcement powers against dominant platforms, anticipating this exact problem.
- Despite having these powers, the CMA has so far only secured weak, voluntary commitments from Apple and Google rather than binding requirements.
Assumptions
- Increased competition among app stores would necessarily lead to lower prices and better terms for developers and consumers.
- Voluntary commitments from Apple and Google are inherently insufficient compared to binding regulatory requirements.
- The CMA has the practical capacity and political backing to enforce binding rules against these companies.
- Alternative app stores would emerge and be viable if Apple and Google were forced to allow them.
- The harm from the 'app tax' is primarily attributable to market power/duopoly rather than legitimate costs of providing the platform (hosting, security review, payment processing, etc.).
- UK government action in isolation can meaningfully affect global companies' practices.