EU Regulators Impose €500 Million Fine on Apple Over Digital Markets Act Compliance
European Union regulators fined Apple €500 million for noncompliance with the Digital Markets Act as the company announced changes to its EU fee structure.
2 reports on this incident · first at Aug 18, 2026, 7:12 p.m. ET
European Union regulators imposed a €500 million penalty on Apple for noncompliance with the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA), TechCrunch reported. Regulators have also threatened Apple with further fines.
In conjunction with regulatory oversight, Apple announced a simplified EU commission structure, according to TechCrunch. Under the changes, Apple is replacing its per-install Core Technology Fee with a flat 5% commission on digital goods in apps distributed outside the App Store or on the web. Apple is also adjusting in-app purchase fees to 26% and alternative payment commissions to 20%, while loosening financial requirements for developers seeking to operate alternative app marketplaces in the EU.
Earlier reports
Aug 18, 2026, 7:12 p.m. ETFirst report
Apple Overhauls EU App Store Fee Structure and Rules
Apple has announced a simplified European Union commission structure, TechCrunch reported on August 18, 2026. Under the updated structure, Apple is replacing its per-install Core Technology Fee with a flat 5% commission on digital goods for apps distributed outside the App Store or on the web. The company is adjusting in-app purchase fees to 26% and alternative payment commissions to 20%, while also loosening financial requirements for developers seeking to operate alternative app marketplaces in the EU. TechCrunch reported that European Commission regulators previously fined Apple €500 million for noncompliance with the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA) and threatened further fines. The situation remains open and developing.
Was this report accurate and useful?
Sources
Revision history
- Version 118 Aug 2026, 23:12current
First published.
- Version 118 Aug 2026, 23:26current
First published.
How we work
This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.
Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.
Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.
None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.