Just when it seems like Apple has hit peak scrutiny from regulators worldwide, another investigation appears. The latest development comes from Switzerland, where competition authorities are taking a close look at Apple Pay and how it handles contactless payments on iPhones.
Switzerland opens an antitrust probe into Apple Pay and NFC access
Switzerland’s competition regulator, through the Secretariat of the Swiss Competition Commission, has launched an antitrust investigation tied to Apple Pay and NFC-based tap-to-pay functionality. The core issue is access: on Android devices, third-party payment apps typically have broad access to NFC contactless payment technology. On iOS, however, NFC access has historically been far more restricted, with Apple Pay effectively positioned as the default route for in-store contactless payments.
Apple only began offering more open NFC access across the EU in 2024 after sustained pressure from the European Commission. In Switzerland, Apple has reportedly been providing third-party payment providers access to its NFC technology since at least late 2024. Even so, Swiss regulators are now questioning whether that access is truly competitive in real-world terms.
The preliminary investigation is focused on two central questions: whether other mobile payment apps can genuinely compete with Apple Pay for contactless payments on iOS devices in retail settings, and whether Apple’s terms for NFC access in Switzerland meet Swiss antitrust standards—especially since those terms reportedly differ from what applies in the European Economic Area (EEA).
Epic case fallout: Apple still faces restrictions on outside payments
Apple is also dealing with major legal pressure tied to payments in the app ecosystem. In the long-running dispute involving Epic, Apple was compelled to allow external payment methods and enable the return of Fortnite. A prior injunction from 2021 required Apple to remove anti-steering barriers—rules that discouraged developers from directing users toward alternative payment options—though Apple was found to have only partially complied.
On April 30, Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers ruled that Apple willfully violated the injunction and barred Apple from collecting any commission on purchases made outside the App Store. Apple appealed.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit largely supported the direction of the lower court’s order but concluded that part of the punishment went too far, stating that the commission prohibition wasn’t narrowly tailored as a civil contempt sanction. The case was sent back to the district court in relevant part, while the rest of the order was affirmed.
What matters now is that Apple still cannot collect commissions on payments made outside the App Store until a final determination is made. The appeals court also pushed Apple and Epic to negotiate an appropriate commission rate for external payments, with the understanding that a court may ultimately have to decide if the two sides can’t agree. Epic’s CEO Tim Sweeney has signaled there may be little appetite for compromise, arguing he can’t see a justification for a percentage-based commission in this context.
This dispute is also fueling pressure in other countries, where consumers and developers are seeking similar flexibility—such as expanded sideloading options and fewer restrictions around off-platform payments.
Apple’s widening antitrust challenges across multiple regions
Beyond Switzerland and the U.S. payments fight, Apple continues to face a growing web of regulatory and legal challenges:
In the European Union, Apple has been designated a “gatekeeper” under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), a label meant for companies with enough market power to impede competition. That designation is tied to factors such as market capitalization or regional revenue thresholds, a large base of monthly active end users, and a sizable number of business users. The EU has also applied gatekeeper status to iOS and iPadOS, requiring Apple to allow third-party app stores and making Apple adjust certain developer terms in the EU. In March 2024, Apple introduced modified terms that allow participating developers to pay a lower share of their app revenue in that region.
Apple has also notified the EU that its Maps and Ads services have reached thresholds that could trigger further gatekeeper review. The EU has 45 days to decide whether to formally apply additional obligations, and if approved, Apple would have up to six months to implement remedies.
In the Netherlands, Apple remains exposed to a potentially massive financial hit in an ongoing antitrust case. Two Dutch consumer foundations have accused Apple of abusing its market dominance by charging third-party developers what they argue are excessive fees—often cited around 30 percent.
In Poland, the country’s competition authority has initiated a formal investigation into whether Apple is applying its App Tracking Transparency (ATT) rules unevenly. The allegation centers on whether Apple collects user consent for tracking in the same way for its own platforms—such as the App Store—while requiring third-party developers to follow stricter consent processes.
In China, a group of roughly 55 consumers has filed an antitrust complaint with the market regulator, arguing Apple maintains monopoly-like control over app distribution and payment methods in China, while allowing alternative app stores and payment options in other markets.
The bigger picture: payments, platforms, and competition
Across these cases, the pattern is consistent. Regulators are increasingly focused on whether Apple’s control over iOS features—like NFC for tap-to-pay and the in-app payment pipeline—creates unfair barriers that competitors can’t realistically overcome. Switzerland’s probe into Apple Pay is the newest example, and it suggests that even outside the EU, pressure is building for Apple to offer more open access, clearer rules, and terms that don’t tilt the playing field toward Apple’s own services.
