(By Fang Zhou, Editor: Lv Dong)
Recently, a letter titled "Complaint Letter on Apple's Abuse of Market Dominance" was exposed online, triggering widespread attention.
On October 24, Observers.com had an in-depth exchange with Tian Junwei, one of the initiators of this complaint, regarding the background and future direction of this complaint.
Tian Junwei is optimistic about the prospects of this complaint, he believes "investigation is inevitable, it's just a matter of time." Once a monopolistic investigation is successfully initiated against Apple, the company could face a "sky-high" fine of up to $33.476 billion (approximately RMB 238.4 billion).
Tian Junwei also revealed that in the future, he plans to file another complaint against Apple's "unlicensed operation" for operating App Store without obtaining value-added telecommunications business licenses and charging commissions through in-app payment services, pushing Apple to establish a market entity for operating Apple app stores in China.
In this complaint letter, 55 Chinese consumers, including Wang Qiongfei and Tian Junwei, submitted an administrative complaint to the State Administration for Market Regulation, accusing Apple of abusing its market dominance by forcing restrictions on application distribution and payment channels, and charging high commissions.
This complaint mainly targets the commission rules of the Apple App Store and payment channels, which are widely known as the "Apple tax".
In the letter, the complainants believe that Chinese consumers have been blocked by Apple compared to Europe and the United States, prohibited from using third-party digital goods and service payment channels other than IAP (In-App Purchase, referring to Apple's in-app purchases), and prohibited from using third-party app stores or websites other than the App Store, thus deprived of the right to choose payment channels and application acquisition channels, forced to bear the "Apple tax" burden of up to 30% which is much higher than in Europe and the United States.
The so-called "Apple tax" refers to when Apple users pay to download applications or purchase digital goods or services within applications through the Apple mobile phone app store, they must first pay to the Apple payment system, which takes a 10%-30% commission, and then transfers the remaining amount to the developers. For many years, its high commission rate has caused complaints from application developers and individual consumers around the world, and it can be said that "the world is tired of the Apple tax."
Tian Junwei stated that the preparation of this complaint has taken several months. Since the second half of 2023, multiple consumers who have had disputes with Apple have sought his help. To fix the evidence of Apple's wrongdoing, Tian Junwei has assisted consumers in submitting multiple complaints to Apple according to the Consumer Rights Protection Law, but all these complaints failed because Apple has not established a market entity to operate Apple app stores in China.
This is not the first time that Tian Junwei has filed a complaint against Apple. In February this year, 48 consumers, represented by Tian Junwei, sent a joint complaint letter to the State Administration for Market Regulation, accusing Apple of abusing its market dominance by forcing consumers to use no-password payments.
The State Administration for Market Regulation once replied: Article 7 of the Anti-Monopoly Law of the People's Republic of China states: "Operators with market dominance shall not abuse their market dominance to exclude or restrict competition." According to this provision, the anti-monopoly law regulates the behavior of operators with market dominance who abuse their market dominance to exclude or restrict competition. The applicant believes that Apple abuses its market dominance by forcing them to use only no-password payment methods in the Apple App Store, leading to their account being stolen. The behavior targeted by this complaint does not fall under the "exclusion or restriction of competition" mentioned in the above provisions, and the Bureau's response that "it is difficult to determine that the behavior constitutes a monopoly is appropriate."
After several unsuccessful complaints, Tian Junwei noticed that there is another lawyer in the industry who is also studying this issue, which is the other initiator of this complaint - Wang Qiongfei.
Public information shows that Wang Qiongfei works at Zhejiang Kending Law Firm, and previously worked in the legal departments of Tencent and Alibaba. He has been involved in cases such as Tencent v. Qihu QQ Guard Unfair Competition Case, Taobao v. Beauty Company Big Data Unfair Competition Case, and Baidu v. Chen Wei Trademark Infringement and Unfair Competition Case. While Tian Junwei works at Shandong Nayuan Law Firm, previously he has represented the case of JD account theft insurance compensation.
As early as January 2021, consumer Jin sued Apple and Apple Computer Trading (Shanghai) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Apple Shanghai Company), requesting the two defendants to immediately stop the abuse of market dominance, including but not limited to stopping the collection of unfair high prices of 30% of the transaction amount through "in-app purchases"; stopping the mandatory bundling, restricted transactions, and refusal to transact by requiring "in-app purchases" to choose the IAP system for payment.
This case was represented by Wang Qiongfei. In May 2024, the first instance judgment ruled that Apple has market dominance, but rejected the claim of "abuse of market dominance," both parties appealed, and the case is currently being reviewed by the Supreme People's Court.
In the first instance judgment, the court believed that due to the vast business system of the App Store platform, it is actually difficult to clarify the specific costs incurred by Apple in operating the platform, so the court cannot evaluate the difference between Apple's operating costs and the commission collected, and thus cannot assess whether the commission is too high based on this difference.
Regarding Apple's forced bundling, restricted transactions, or refusal to transact, the court believed that the objects involved in the use of the IAP module are developers, which will not affect the interests of consumers, and the plaintiff has no interest in bringing a lawsuit over this behavior; even if the plaintiff has the corresponding interest in the lawsuit, the IAP module is not an independent product available for sale, and the plaintiff has not proven that the defendant has refused to transact. Moreover, although Apple limits the payment modules used by developers, it indeed protects the interests of the transaction counterparties and consumers, effectively protecting data security, maintaining a reasonable business model, so Apple's behavior will not result in the exclusion or restriction of market competition.
However, the court also ruled that Apple has market dominance in the Chinese market. The court believes that Apple is the main operator of the intelligent terminal application trading platform under the iOS system in the areas of the People's Republic of China excluding Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan. Although Apple International Distributors also participates in the service between the platform and consumers, Apple and Apple International Distributors are related companies, and other operators cannot enter the platform.
After the first instance judgment of this case was announced, Tian Junwei actively contacted Wang Qiongfei for help, and the two began to jointly study this issue. After several months of preparation, this joint complaint was made. According to his introduction, most of the 55 consumers participating in the joint complaint are Apple consumers whose accounts were stolen. Tian Junwei said that these consumers came from all over the country, from various provinces and industries. He believes that gathering more than 50 consumers is already quite a lot.
According to data previously released by the QuestMobile TRUTH China Mobile Internet Database, in June 2025, Apple's active user count reached 271 million.
From his own experience, "facing foreign tech giants, I feel a deep sense of helplessness," said Tian Junwei.
Using the previous case represented by Wang Qiongfei, "Jin's case" as an example, Tian Junwei analyzed: "As an international litigation, according to the law, there is no deadline for the trial, and anti-monopoly cases are indeed complex, so the second instance has not yet concluded. But according to my understanding, Apple has raised clearly unfounded jurisdictional objections from the beginning, and the documents need to be delivered across borders to Apple, which has consumed a lot of time for the parties involved."
"From the perspective of legal professionals, this is clearly a strategy of Apple to delay time and increase the cost of consumer rights protection," said Tian Junwei.
Obstacles set by Apple for consumers seeking redress are not limited to the court defense stage. Tian Junwei added that although Apple has business entities in Beijing and Shanghai, according to the "Apple Media Services Terms and Conditions" unilaterally drafted by Apple, the contract party for Chinese consumers is Apple Distribution International Ltd. in Ireland, and the jurisdictional court for disputes is the California court in the United States. After Chinese consumers have disputes with Apple in the Apple App Store, if they complain about Apple's business entities in Beijing or Shanghai, these entities generally claim not to operate the Apple App Store, and the complaints cannot be accepted; if consumers sue Apple's business entities in Beijing or Shanghai, since courts generally conduct a preliminary formal review during the filing stage, they usually determine the jurisdictional court based on the contract agreement. If consumers do not hire a lawyer, they may get stuck at the filing stage due to lack of professional knowledge, and the court may reject the case on the grounds that the agreed jurisdictional court is not in China. Apple obviously knows that the clauses in the format contract that exclude consumers' right to sue in their home country are invalid, but still stipulate the jurisdictional court in the United States, California in the user agreement, and Apple has carefully planned to make it difficult for consumers to seek redress. If consumers do not have professional legal knowledge or do not have a lawyer, they may get stuck at the filing stage and give up their rights.
Information provided by Lawyer Tian to Observers.com shows that he has repeatedly failed to file a case. Source provides.
From the perspective of the Anti-Monopoly Law, the advantage lies in the fact that there are no obstacles for the jurisdiction of the administrative enforcement department. According to the provisions of the Anti-Monopoly Law, if the behavior of an overseas company has an impact on the domestic market, China still has jurisdiction. "This is also the reason why I finally chose to file a complaint against Apple from the perspective of the Anti-Monopoly Law after sorting out," said Tian Junwei.
But initially, Tian Junwei did not choose the Anti-Monopoly Law because the evidence was too difficult. He said that as an individual consumer, it is very difficult to collect sufficient evidence in court to prove that Apple has abused its market dominance.
Therefore, Tian Junwei hopes to rely on the power of administrative regulatory authorities. This is one of the starting points of this complaint.
"In short, the purpose of the complaint is to reduce the difficulty of subsequent civil litigation or reduce the cost of rights protection."
Tian Junwei is optimistic about the future. "I think the filing is inevitable, it's just a matter of time," he said.
"From the perspective of foreign anti-monopoly enforcement practices, it can be said that large judicial jurisdictions may have not yet launched anti-monopoly investigations against Apple, even if no consumers or developers have raised complaints, the Chinese anti-monopoly enforcement agencies may have started preliminary investigations. The Chinese anti-monopoly legislation has drawn on many foreign anti-monopoly laws, and anti-monopoly enforcement has global convergence, so I believe the chances of success are very high."
"From a legal perspective, the first instance court has already recognized that Apple has market dominance in the 'Jin case'. In anti-monopoly enforcement against abuse of market dominance, the determination of whether there is market dominance is very important. Although the standards of civil litigation and administrative enforcement are not completely the same, the possibility of overturning the first instance's recognition of Apple's market dominance in the second instance is very low. If the final second instance judgment still recognizes that Apple has market dominance, then the main content of the anti-monopoly enforcement agency will be to determine whether Apple has engaged in abuse of market dominance. The results of foreign anti-monopoly enforcement will certainly have an impact on domestic ones. Personally, I think it's just a question of how much abuse of market dominance the Chinese anti-monopoly enforcement agency will recognize."
Currently, more than ten countries, including the European Union, the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, Japan, and South Korea, have responded to the demands of local developers by regulating the "Apple tax" through legislation, law enforcement, and litigation. Apple has made concessions in some countries and regions.
According to public information, since the implementation of the EU's Digital Markets Act in 2024, Apple has allowed developers to guide users to use external payment channels and reduced the commission to 10%-20% (depending on the type of service and the size of the developer); while Apple in the United States still forces users to use IAP, but allows jumping to third-party payments via external links, and does not charge any commission; South Korea and Russia allow external payments and charge tiered commissions of 11%-26% and 12%-27%, respectively.
In contrast, China still strictly implements its closed ecosystem policy: all digital commodity transactions within iOS apps must go through Apple's official payment system, with a standard commission of 30%, and only small developers with annual revenue below $1 million are offered a 15% discounted rate, and direct jumps to WeChat Pay, Alipay, and other local payment methods are strictly prohibited.
The difference in treatment behind this is the "arrogance" displayed by Apple as an industry leader. Both lawyers have experienced this deeply.
Recently, Wang Qiongfei told Fenghuang Technology, "From Apple's history of responding to global anti-monopoly regulation, I think Apple is a rather arrogant company... Unless a region takes strict legal actions, whether civil litigation or administrative regulation, it will not change."
Tian Junwei also said, "Chinese developers should also have the right to enjoy lower commissions and more choices in payment channels, but rights are won through struggle. Without pressure, Apple obviously will not voluntarily offer benefits to Chinese developers. It's not until the last moment that I don't make concessions, and this feeling is particularly obvious in Apple."
When the huge economic benefits of the Apple tax and consumer rights are placed on the scales, Apple's choice needs no further explanation.
Public reports show that in 2024, Chinese consumers paid $6.44 billion in Apple taxes, accounting for 10% of its revenue in China, second only to the U.S. $14.8 billion, exceeding Apple's second-largest market in Europe, where the Apple tax burden was $4.8 billion.
"The Anti-Monopoly Law has a 'deterrent effect,' its fine intensity is something most companies cannot accept, and this is also one of the reasons I want to push for an anti-monopoly investigation into Apple - once an anti-monopoly investigation is initiated, Apple may quickly compromise," said Tian Junwei.
He explained:
Article 57 of the Anti-Monopoly Law stipulates that if an operator violates the provisions of this law and abuses its market dominance, the anti-monopoly enforcement agency shall order the cessation of the illegal act, confiscate the illegal gains, and impose a fine of one percent to ten percent of the sales revenue of the previous year.
If the State Administration for Market Regulation determines that Apple has committed a monopolistic act and imposes a penalty, in addition to confiscating Apple's illegal gains, a fine will be imposed based on Apple's sales revenue of the previous year. According to Apple's 2024 fiscal year financial report, Apple's sales revenue in the Greater China region was $66.952 billion. Although Apple has not listed the sales revenue in mainland China separately, given the high share of mainland China's sales revenue in the Greater China region, we can make a preliminary estimate based on this data. At the lowest one percent fine ratio, the fine amount would be $669.52 million, and at the ten percent fine ratio, the maximum fine would be $6.6952 billion.
Article 63 of the Anti-Monopoly Law further stipulates that if the violation of this law is particularly serious, the impact is especially bad, and the consequences are especially serious, the State Council's anti-monopoly enforcement agency may determine the specific fine amount at two to five times the fine amount specified in Articles 56, 57, 58, and 62 of this law.
Apple has been penalized in several countries for similar monopolistic behaviors, but it has not proactively corrected its illegal acts in the Chinese market, so it may also be deemed as particularly serious circumstances, theoretically possibly increasing the penalty on the basis of Article 57. If so, Apple may face a maximum fine of $33.476 billion. Considering the complexity of the anti-monopoly investigation, the case investigation may take several years. Given that the fine amount is related to the sales revenue of the previous year, and considering that the revenue from the Apple tax in the Chinese market is increasing year by year, and the Chinese anti-monopoly enforcement agency may theoretically also use Apple's global revenue as the basis for the fine, the final fine amount could theoretically be even higher.
Since the release of the complaint letter, it has attracted widespread attention from the public.
Regarding outside speculation, Tian Junwei said, "Our goal is clear, we want to quickly push the Chinese anti-monopoly enforcement agency to initiate an anti-monopoly investigation against Apple, which can reduce the difficulty and save a lot of consumer rights protection costs for subsequent consumer civil litigation."
Tian Junwei also mentioned that he also wants to file a collective complaint against Apple's "unlicensed operation." He introduced that in China, operating an application software store business requires obtaining a value-added telecommunications business license, but Apple has long been charging commissions through its App Store in-app payment service without obtaining the license.
Tian Junwei said that if the "unlicensed operation" complaint is established, Apple will face a binary choice: either exit the Chinese market or establish an operational entity for the Apple app store in China.
He believes that this will bring significant benefits to Chinese consumers, App Store developers, and copyright holders, and completely change the consumer rights protection dilemma: when consumers have consumption disputes in the App Store, they can directly sue the Chinese operational entity of the Apple app store, instead of having to litigate against the American Apple company or Apple Distribution International Ltd. in Ireland. This will allow consumers to avoid the complicated international litigation procedures, avoid high foreign service fees, and also avoid the lengthy litigation period of several years in international litigation.
This article is an exclusive article from Observers.com. Unauthorized reproduction is prohibited.
Original: https://www.toutiao.com/article/7565078904671617536/
Statement: The article represents the views of the author. Please express your attitude by clicking the [Up/Down] buttons below.