Edited on Jun 23, 2026.
South Korea has become the first national government to legislatively compress the App Store commission structure operated by Apple and Google. The amendment to the Telecommunications Business Act, passed by the National Assembly on August 31 and signed into law in mid-September, requires Apple and Google to allow third-party payment systems inside apps distributed through their stores in South Korea. The legislation is the most consequential regulatory action against the 30 percent app store commission structure to date, and it has produced sustained press coverage across the technology, business, and policy press.
The South Korean action lands at the same time as the partial verdict in the Epic Games v. Apple case in U.S. federal court. The two events together signal that the multi-jurisdictional regulatory environment around app store economics is becoming more aggressive, more coordinated, and more directly consequential for Apple and Google revenues.
What the South Korean law requires
The substantive provisions are concrete.
Apple and Google are required to allow third-party payment systems inside apps distributed through their stores in South Korea. App developers can use their own payment infrastructure or third-party services rather than being required to route transactions through Apple's or Google's in-app payment systems.
The platforms must approve app submissions promptly and cannot arbitrarily remove apps. The provision addresses developer complaints about opaque review processes and the perceived risk of retaliatory app removal.
Maximum penalties are set at 3 percent of Korean revenue for non-compliant operators. The penalty structure gives the Korean Communications Commission enforceable authority over implementation.
The law is known informally as the "Anti-Google Law" in Korean press coverage because Google's Play Store has the dominant market position in South Korea. The provisions apply equally to Apple's App Store.
The Epic Games v. Apple parallel
On September 10, three days before this piece, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California issued the verdict in Epic Games v. Apple. The court ruled that Apple had not violated federal antitrust law in operating the App Store as a closed ecosystem but had violated California's Unfair Competition Law by preventing developers from directing users to alternative payment systems.
The injunction requires Apple to allow developers to include links and information in their apps directing users to alternative payment options. The ruling is more limited than what Epic Games sought but produces structural change in how Apple's App Store can operate in the U.S. market.
Apple has signaled an appeal. Epic Games has also indicated it will appeal. The case is far from final but the September 10 ruling is the most significant U.S. legal action against the App Store structure to date.
The cumulative regulatory environment
The South Korean law and the Epic Games verdict are landing inside a broader regulatory environment that has been building for several years.
The European Commission has been investigating Apple's App Store practices since 2020. The European Parliament has been actively developing the Digital Markets Act, which would impose more comprehensive obligations on large platforms operating in the European Union. The legislation is expected to advance through 2022.
The United Kingdom's Competition and Markets Authority has opened a Mobile Ecosystems Market Study examining Apple's and Google's mobile platform market positions.
Australia's Competition and Consumer Commission has been examining the same questions.
Japan has been signaling potential legislative action.
The cumulative pressure is structural. The 30 percent commission structure that has operated largely unchanged since the App Store launched in 2008 is now under simultaneous regulatory scrutiny in multiple major jurisdictions.
The communications posture
Apple's public communications across the regulatory cycle have followed a consistent pattern. The company has framed the App Store commission structure as the price of platform security, privacy, and developer support infrastructure. Apple has publicly opposed sideloading on security grounds. The company has implemented required regulatory changes in specific jurisdictions while continuing to argue that the changes degrade the security and quality of the platform for users.
Google has taken a similar but somewhat more accommodating posture, reflecting Google's mixed position — the Play Store is the dominant Android app store but Android already allows sideloading and alternative app stores, which gives Google more room to make commission concessions without compromising the broader platform model.
For brand and communications work, the App Store regulatory cycle is becoming one of the most-watched corporate-positioning challenges of the past several years. The brands have to manage adverse regulatory outcomes, sustained press coverage, developer-community frustration, and the risk that further jurisdictions will follow South Korea's lead.
What this sets up next
Three structural questions worth watching across the next twelve months.
Will other jurisdictions follow South Korea? The South Korean law is the first national-level legislative action against the App Store commission structure. If the implementation produces measurable revenue impact on Apple and Google without producing visible consumer harm, other jurisdictions will be more likely to follow. The European Union, the United Kingdom, Australia, and Japan are all candidates.
How will Apple structure compliance? Apple's compliance approach in South Korea — particularly whether the company tries to maintain a reduced platform commission on transactions processed through third-party payment systems — will set the template for compliance in subsequent jurisdictions. The Korean Communications Commission has signaled it will scrutinize the compliance approach closely.
How will the Epic Games appeal cycle play out? The Epic Games verdict will be appealed. The Ninth Circuit's reading of the California Unfair Competition Law in the App Store context will shape future U.S. legal challenges. The case may eventually reach the Supreme Court.
The bottom line
The South Korean App Store law is the opening shot in what is becoming a sustained multi-jurisdictional regulatory reset of how mobile app stores operate. The Epic Games verdict in the United States is the parallel legal action. Apple and Google have committed to consistent public positioning through the regulatory cycle, and they have substantial financial incentives to defend the existing commission structure. The cumulative pressure is real and growing, and the next twelve months will determine how durable the existing platform economics actually are.
