A small Chinese developer is suing Apple over alleged inconsistent and monopolistic enforcement of App Store policies – and it feels like the Epic Games lawsuit all over again.
It’s been a rough year for Apple in the world of antitrust. And it’s closing it out with yet another legal fight over the App Store’s policies, but this one’s coming from an unlikely challenger – a small Beijing app developer called Bodyreader.
The Chinese company behind a kids’ posture correction app is taking Apple to Beijing’s intellectual property court, alleging the iPhone maker’s app review practices are unfair and monopolistic. Bodyreader is seeking around $420,000 in damages after Apple pulled their app from the App Store back in 2020, accusing them of shady behavior that could interfere with iOS software and services.
Interestingly, the developers claim they published an identical app under a new name “Qilin Century” and it sailed through review with no problem. So they’re also arguing Apple’s enforcement is inconsistent.
Bloomberg, who first reported this news, notes that the lawsuit bears some similarities to Epic Games’ high-profile antitrust battle with Apple that kicked off in 2021 over Fortnite’s removal. Like Epic, Bodyreader is taking aim at Apple’s restrictive app policies and that controversial 30% cut it takes from in-app purchases made through the App Store’s payment system.
In their complaint, the developers are asking the court to order Apple to open up iOS to third-party app stores and allow alternative payment links within apps. Basically, they want Apple to loosen up tight control over app distribution and payments on iPhones and iPads.
Closed-door hearings in the case began this week and could wrap up as soon as Friday, according to sources who spoke to Bloomberg.
While it may seem like a small story, it actually marks the first time Apple is facing allegations over its standard mobile platform practices from a Chinese developer on their home turf.
Earlier this year, Apple successfully defended itself against antitrust claims from a Chinese consumer group. But the company wasn’t satisfied and appealed parts of the ruling that described its dominant position in the market, hoping to scrub those references.