Apple’s App Store Under Renewed Antitrust Fire in China as Legal Strategy Shifts

China’s Antitrust Battle Against Apple Intensifies

Apple faces a renewed and strategically different antitrust challenge in China as a prominent law firm has escalated the battle against the tech giant’s App Store practices. Instead of pursuing another civil lawsuit, the firm has now filed a formal administrative complaint with China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR), representing 55 Chinese iPhone and iPad users in what could become a landmark case for digital market regulation in the country.

The Core Allegations Against Apple

The complaint alleges that Apple maintains an illegal monopoly over iOS app distribution in China through its exclusive control of the App Store. According to the filing, Apple restricts developers from using third-party payment systems while charging commissions of up to 30% on digital transactions. These practices, the complainants argue, violate China’s antitrust laws and harm both consumers and developers.

This isn’t the first time Apple has faced such allegations in China. The current action builds upon a 2021 case brought by individual plaintiff Jin Xin, represented by the same attorney, Wang Qiongfei. That earlier lawsuit was dismissed by a Shanghai court in 2024 after demanding that Apple completely cease collecting its App Store fee and pay substantial damages to affected parties.

Strategic Shift in Legal Approach

Attorney Wang Qiongfei has adopted a significantly different strategy this time, telling media outlets that the administrative complaint aims to prompt regulatory enforcement rather than seek a civil judgment. This approach bypasses the traditional court system in favor of direct regulatory action, which could potentially yield faster and more comprehensive results.

The new complaint also incorporates a comparative legal argument, highlighting that Apple is maintaining a closed App Store ecosystem in China while complying with regulatory changes elsewhere. “Apple’s differential treatment of markets demonstrates that change is possible when regulatory pressure is applied,” Wang noted in his statements to Reuters.

Global Context and Precedents

The filing specifically references Apple’s compliance with the European Union’s Digital Markets Act, which forced the company to allow alternative payment methods and app sideloading. Similarly, the complaint cites a U.S. court ruling that requires Apple to permit outside payment links in App Store transactions.

This case emerges amid broader global technology tensions and increasing scrutiny of major tech platforms worldwide. As regulatory environments evolve, companies like Apple are navigating increasingly complex compliance landscapes across different jurisdictions.

Procedural Expectations and Parallel Actions

Wang expects the regulatory complaint to proceed more rapidly than the previous civil action, which spanned nearly three years before dismissal. Simultaneously, he is appealing the 2024 dismissal to China’s Supreme People’s Court, which heard arguments in December but has not yet issued a ruling.

The dual-track approach—pursuing both administrative and judicial remedies—reflects a sophisticated legal strategy that acknowledges the complexities of challenging tech giants in today’s regulatory environment. This case could set important precedents for how cloud infrastructure and digital platform regulations develop in key markets.

Broader Industry Implications

The outcome of this case could have significant implications for the entire mobile ecosystem in China, which represents one of Apple’s most important markets. A ruling against Apple could force changes to its business model that might then be applied in other jurisdictions.

This development comes as the technology sector faces increasing regulatory scrutiny worldwide, with recent industry developments showing how major players are adapting to new legal requirements. The case also highlights how global antitrust challenges are evolving as regulators and litigants learn from precedents set in different markets.

As the digital economy continues to transform global commerce, cases like this one will likely become more common, with outcomes that could reshape how platform companies operate across borders and how consumers access digital services worldwide.

This article aggregates information from publicly available sources. All trademarks and copyrights belong to their respective owners.

Note: Featured image is for illustrative purposes only and does not represent any specific product, service, or entity mentioned in this article.