European regulators accuse Apple of breaching new rules with its App Store

• The European Commission has accused Apple of stifling competition with its App Store policies.
• Regulators say Apple is in breach of new tech rules by restricting alternative app promotions.
• In March, the European Commission fined Apple 1.8 billion euros for abusing its market dominance.

The European Commission has accused Apple of stifling competition with its App Store.

The European regulators said Apple was in breach of new tech rules, known as the Digital Markets Act (DMA), as the company prevents app developers from steering customers to App Store alternatives.

Under the European rules, developers should be able to freely inform customers of cheaper purchasing options and steer them toward the offers.

The Commission said Apple's business terms did not allow developers to do this, citing limits on communication and information sharing within the app.

Margrethe Vestager, the executive vice president of the European Commission, said: "Our preliminary position is that Apple does not fully allow steering. Steering is key to ensure that app developers are less dependent on gatekeepers' app stores and for consumers to be aware of better offers."

"The developers' community and consumers are eager to offer alternatives to the App Store. We will investigate to ensure Apple does not undermine these efforts," she said.

The regulators said they had also opened a new probe into Apple's contractual requirements for third-party app developers and app stores.

Representatives for Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Business Insider, made outside normal US working hours.

In March, the European Commission fined Apple 1.8 billion euros for abusing its market dominance. The regulators said Apple had restricted app developers from informing users about other, cheaper music services.

Apple said in a press release at the time it would appeal the decision.

The company said the commission reached the decision despite a "failure to uncover any credible evidence of consumer harm" and argued that the ruling ignored "the realities of a market that is thriving, competitive, and growing fast."