UK CMA designates Apple and Google as market‑dominant, expanding oversight

The UK’s Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has classified Apple and Google as market‑dominant in key digital areas and placed them under expanded oversight. The move mirrors elements of the EU’s Digital Markets Act and signals tighter scrutiny of app stores, in‑app payments, default settings and data practices in the UK.

What’s changing

• Closer review of core platform rules: App store terms, billing options, default apps (e.g., browser/search) and cross‑service data use will face stricter checks.
• Conduct requirements: The CMA can set tailored obligations to curb self‑preferencing and improve fair access for rivals.
• User choice & interoperability: Potential measures to ease switching, enhance portability and open up more capabilities to third parties.

Why it matters

• Consumers: Could gain more browser/app choice, alternative payment options and clearer consent controls.
• Developers: May see fairer distribution terms, new billing routes and more transparent review processes.
• Platforms: Apple and Google face additional compliance, potential policy/fee adjustments and ongoing audits in the UK.

Context: UK vs EU

While the UK regime is separate, the CMA’s approach broadly aligns with the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), which curbs self‑preferencing and mandates interoperability for designated “gatekeepers.” The UK can tailor obligations to local market concerns.

What to watch next

• Specific UK conduct rules: Details on app store terms, browser engines, alternative payments and sideloading pathways.
• Timelines & appeals: Phased implementation with potential consultations and legal challenge windows.
• Market impact: Any shifts to app store fees, developer policies and default app choices on UK‑sold devices.

References:
UK Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) ·
Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (UK) ·
EU Digital Markets Act (DMA)

Discussion: Will stronger UK oversight actually deliver more choice and lower costs for users and developers—or add compliance overhead with limited real‑world benefit?