Apple and EU Clash Over Setapp’s European Shutdown Amid Regulatory Disputes
In a significant development within the European tech landscape, MacPaw has announced the impending shutdown of its Setapp Mobile service in the European Union, effective February 16, 2026. This decision has ignited a contentious exchange between Apple and the European Commission, each attributing the closure to the other’s actions.
Setapp’s Departure from the EU Market
Setapp Mobile, operated by MacPaw, functioned as an alternative iOS app marketplace, offering users a curated selection of applications under a subscription model. The service’s termination is attributed to the intricate and evolving business terms that, according to MacPaw, are incompatible with their current operational model. The company stated:
> Setapp Mobile is scheduled to sunset on February 16, 2026, due to still-evolving and complex business terms that don’t fit Setapp’s current business model.
While MacPaw refrained from providing exhaustive details, it’s evident that Apple’s fee structures in Europe have significantly influenced this outcome. Under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), Apple is mandated to permit third-party app stores on iOS devices. Consequently, Apple imposes fees on both the app marketplaces and the individual applications they host, a policy that has been a point of contention among developers.
The European Commission’s Stance
The European Commission is poised to hold Apple accountable for Setapp’s withdrawal. The Commission contends that Apple has not adequately addressed critical issues related to its business terms, particularly their complexity. A forthcoming statement from the Commission is expected to assert:
> Apple has not rolled out changes to address the key issues concerning its business terms, including their complexity.
This perspective suggests that the Commission views Apple’s actions, or lack thereof, as a hindrance to the successful operation of alternative app marketplaces within the EU.
Apple’s Rebuttal
Apple has countered these allegations, asserting that the European Commission has obstructed its efforts to amend App Store regulations in compliance with the DMA. The company expressed its frustration, stating:
> The European Commission has refused to let us implement the very changes that they requested. In October, we submitted a formal compliance plan and they have yet to respond. The EC is using political delay tactics to mislead the public, move the goal posts, and unfairly target an American company with burdensome investigations and onerous fines.
Apple emphasizes that without the Commission’s approval, it is unable to modify its pricing structures or policies, thereby absolving itself of responsibility for Setapp’s closure. Additionally, Apple notes a lack of substantial demand for alternative app stores in Europe, suggesting that this factor, rather than its own policies, contributed to Setapp’s decision to exit the market.
The Underlying Conflict: Digital Markets Act
At the heart of this dispute is the Digital Markets Act, legislation designed to foster competition by requiring tech giants like Apple to open their platforms to third-party services. While Apple has developed systems to comply with the DMA, many developers argue that these measures are convoluted and financially burdensome.
Positions of the Involved Parties
Apple’s Perspective:
– The European Commission has obstructed its compliance plan.
– Approval for new pricing terms has been withheld by the Commission.
– The Commission employs delay tactics to unjustly penalize Apple.
– Setapp’s failure is attributed to minimal demand for alternative app stores.
European Commission’s Perspective:
– Apple has not simplified its complex business terms.
– Apple continues to create challenges for new marketplaces to thrive.
– Setapp’s withdrawal serves as evidence of Apple’s non-compliance.
As the February 2026 deadline approaches, the cessation of Setapp’s services in the EU underscores the escalating tensions between Apple and European regulators. This situation highlights the broader challenges of implementing regulatory frameworks intended to promote competition in the digital marketplace.
