The Legal Challenge Resurfaces
When 55 Chinese iPhone users filed a collective complaint against Apple this autumn, they turned to a familiar legal champion: Wang Qiongfei, the attorney who previously spearheaded China’s first private antitrust case against the tech giant four years earlier. Wang is now leading a new public complaint to China’s State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR), alleging that Apple continues to enforce monopolistic practices within its Chinese App Store ecosystem.
The filing specifically targets Apple’s commission structure, payment restrictions, and control over app distribution. According to Wang, Apple has effectively “turned its walled garden into a tax on digital life” for Chinese consumers. This legal action comes amid broader market trends affecting technology companies operating in China.
From Symbolic Challenge to Substantial Threat
Wang, founding partner at Zhejiang Kin Ding Law Firm, first challenged Apple’s business practices in 2021 on behalf of a consumer identified only as “Jin.” While that initial case was small in scale, it established an important legal precedent and demonstrated that Chinese consumers could challenge Apple’s market dominance through legal channels.
The current complaint represents a significant escalation in scope and ambition. Wang’s team accuses Apple of “abusing a 100% dominant position” in China’s iOS app market, noting that users can only download apps through Apple’s official store and must use its proprietary payment system—all while paying what remains among the world’s highest commission rates. The legal team is specifically asking regulators to mandate platform openness to third-party app stores and payment providers, mirroring reforms Apple has already implemented in other markets.
Global Context and Chinese Particularities
Apple has faced increasing regulatory pressure worldwide, with significant consequences in multiple jurisdictions. A U.S. federal court recently reaffirmed that Apple must allow links to external payment systems, while the European Commission imposed a €500 million fine under the Digital Markets Act. Meanwhile, Japan’s Fair Trade Commission has given Apple until December 2025 to enable third-party stores.
Despite these global concessions, China—Apple’s second-largest market, contributing nearly one-fifth of its global revenue—has yet to see similar policy shifts. Wang argues this discrepancy comes at significant cost to Chinese consumers, who he claims are “still paying the highest digital tax in the world.” His analysis suggests that for every $10 Apple earns in China, approximately $1 comes from App Store commissions—roughly double the rate in European markets.
Strategic Timing Amid Economic Tensions
The legal challenge arrives during a particularly sensitive period for Apple in China. The company reported an 11% year-over-year revenue decline in the Chinese market during the first quarter of 2025, attributed to increased competition from domestic manufacturers like Huawei and generally weakening smartphone demand. Tim Cook’s spring visit to Shanghai was widely interpreted as an effort to repair relationships and discuss evolving regulatory frameworks affecting Apple’s operations.
The timing also coincides with renewed U.S.-China trade tensions, with both governments employing tariffs and technology restrictions as political tools. On October 10, SAMR opened a separate antitrust investigation into Qualcomm regarding its acquisition of Israeli V2X chipmaker Autotalks, citing failure to properly notify Chinese regulators. This pattern of enforcement actions suggests Beijing is increasingly willing to use competition law as leverage in broader strategic disputes with Washington. These antitrust challenges reflect a growing trend of regulatory scrutiny facing major technology platforms.
Financial Stakes and Potential Impact
Should SAMR launch a formal investigation and ultimately rule against Apple, the financial implications could be substantial. Analysts estimate Apple earned approximately $6.44 billion in App Store commissions from Chinese users in 2024, representing roughly 10% of its local revenue. Reducing the standard commission from 30% to 10% would eliminate approximately $4.3 billion in annual revenue—a significant blow to Apple’s services segment, which has become increasingly important as hardware sales stagnate.
Chinese regulators could potentially go beyond European reforms by mandating both third-party payment processing and app sideloading, effectively dismantling Apple’s control over app distribution. Such an outcome would undermine one of Apple’s most profitable and strategically defensible business units, while likely encouraging regulators in other markets to pursue similar measures. This situation reflects broader industry developments in platform governance and regulation.
Broader Implications for Tech Governance
For Beijing, the Apple case represents more than just consumer protection—it’s an opportunity to demonstrate that foreign dominance in critical digital markets will not go unchecked. The action supports China’s narrative of fair competition while allowing authorities to showcase regulatory parity with Western counterparts.
Apple maintains that its closed ecosystem primarily benefits users through enhanced privacy, security, and fraud prevention systems. However, this argument is losing traction globally as regulators increasingly view Apple’s safeguards as mechanisms for maintaining control rather than purely protective measures. As we’ve seen with other technology sector challenges, established business models face increasing scrutiny from multiple directions.
Wang Qiongfei’s campaign serves as a barometer for the evolving relationship between U.S. tech giants and Chinese regulators. For two decades, Apple successfully navigated a delicate balance—maintaining deep dependence on Chinese manufacturing while operating its App Store under predominantly U.S.-centric rules. This duality previously insulated Apple from the type of scrutiny faced by domestic companies like Tencent and Alibaba, but that protection appears to be eroding.
The Path Forward
If SAMR accepts Wang’s complaint, it would mark the first application of China’s antitrust framework against a foreign platform of Apple’s scale, signaling that global companies can no longer assume regulatory leniency in China. The decision would occur against a backdrop of escalating U.S. export restrictions on advanced chips, which has accelerated Beijing’s drive for technological self-reliance.
Apple’s future in its second-largest market now depends largely on whether it chooses cooperation or confrontation. Modest concessions—such as limited third-party payment options or reduced commission rates—could help preserve market stability and profitability. Resistance, however, might prompt a more fundamental restructuring of Apple’s services model in China. As with other related innovations in regulatory approaches, the outcome will likely influence global standards.
The resolution of this case will resonate far beyond China’s borders, potentially determining whether the App Store’s highly profitable era is approaching its conclusion or whether Apple can successfully adapt to an increasingly regulated global landscape.
This article aggregates information from publicly available sources. All trademarks and copyrights belong to their respective owners.
Note: Featured image is for illustrative purposes only and does not represent any specific product, service, or entity mentioned in this article.
