Summary

  • Korea Media and Communications Commission says a third-party in-app payment option did not create meaningful choice when it carried a 26% commission, fewer functions and additional platform restrictions.
  • The 28 October order also addresses app-review delays at both platforms and a separate Apple fee-base difference between domestic and overseas developers.

Analysis

The detour had a toll booth. Google and Apple let developers build a third-party payment method inside an app, yet the Korea Media and Communications Commission (KMCC) says both still charged a 26% commission for that route and offered some fewer functions than their own in-app payment systems, including subscription management.

That is the finding in the KMCC’s 28 October decision. The Commission says the two platforms’ terms allowed their own payment method and a developer-provided third-party method while blocking external payments. Developers also had to build and settle their own payment systems, with payment-gateway charges on top. Google restricted how prices could be displayed by payment method; Apple required a separate app submission. KMCC says that bundle made the store’s own checkout the practical choice.

The distinction matters. A third-party payment inside an app is not an external payment. Nor does the existence of a second button settle whether a developer can use it on workable terms. The Commission’s case turns on the whole route: commission, feature access, implementation cost, price display and review procedure. It found the combined conditions amounted to forcing a specific payment method under Article 50(1)(9) of the Telecommunications Business Act.

The order reaches beyond the billing screen. KMCC also found that both companies unfairly delayed app reviews by failing to give concrete reasons or a clear expected schedule when reviews ran late, including after developers asked. Predictable review timing is part of a developer’s release plan; a payment option can be technically available yet commercially awkward if the app’s approval path is opaque.

Apple faced a separate finding. From July 2015 through January 2023, the Commission says Apple calculated a 30% commission for overseas developers on the supply amount after excluding VAT, but for domestic developers on the full consumer price including VAT. KMCC treated that as unfair fee discrimination under a different provision, Article 50(1)(5). It is a separate finding from the 26% third-party payment route.

The Commission ordered changes to payment-choice policies and app-review procedures, plus measures to prevent a recurrence of Apple’s domestic–overseas fee discrimination. It also imposed surcharges of KRW 42.9 billion on Google and KRW 20.81 billion on Apple. KMCC calls this the first enforcement case under the 2021 amendment that added app-market prohibitions for forcing payment methods and delaying reviews.

The useful test is not whether an alternate payment label appears in a developer console. It is whether the route remains usable after commission, feature access, price presentation and review conditions are applied together.

Sources