On May 14, 2025, Brazil’s Administrative Council for Economic Defense (Cade) upheld a preventive measure against Apple, rejecting the company’s appeal during its 247th Ordinary Judgment Session.
The decision maintains an order from Cade’s investigative arm, the Superintendence-General (SG), requiring Apple to cease potentially anticompetitive practices in its App Store or face a daily fine of R$ 250,000 ($49,000 USD).
The order stems from an ongoing investigation into alleged abuse of dominant position in the market for app distribution on iOS devices. The case was initiated following a complaint filed by e-commerce and digital payments companies Mercado Livre and Mercado Pago. According to the complainants, Apple imposes a series of restrictive conditions on developers of digital goods and services, particularly concerning in-app purchases. These restrictions allegedly aim to deter or limit the entry of competing platforms.
The SG found sufficient evidence to open a formal inquiry into the matter. It noted that Apple’s practices — particularly the imposition of a 30% commission on in-app transactions — may constitute a form of tying or bundled sales, raising serious antitrust concerns. Similar allegations have led to investigations and enforcement actions in various jurisdictions including the European Union, United Kingdom, Netherlands, Germany, Australia, South Korea, Japan, India, and Indonesia.
In his opinion, Cade Commissioner Victor emphasized the credibility of the allegation that Apple’s conduct amounts to illegal tying. He argued that the mandatory 30% fee not only imposes excessive costs on app developers but also stifles innovation and limits consumer choice by discouraging market entry and reducing the variety of available applications. He concluded that such conduct violates Brazil’s competition laws.
The tribunal unanimously followed the Commissioner’s vote, affirming the preventive measure imposed by the SG. Apple now has 90 days from the date of the ruling to comply with the order, or it will incur daily fines.
The case is one of the most high-profile examples of growing international scrutiny of major tech platforms’ control over app ecosystems, particularly with regard to fees and commercial conditions imposed on developers.
