Apple hit with more than $1.95 billion EU antitrust fine over music streaming
The European Commission, the European Union’s executive arm, on Monday hit Apple with a 1.8 billion euro ($1.95 billion) antitrust fine for abusing its dominant position on the market for the distribution of music streaming apps.
The commission said it found that Apple had applied restrictions on app developers that prevented them from informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services available outside of the app.
Apple also banned developers of music streaming apps from providing any instructions about how users could subscribe to these cheaper offers, the commission alleged.
This is Apple’s first antitrust fine from Brussels and is one of the biggest dished out to a technology company by the EU.
Apple shares were down around 2.5% in morning trading in the U.S.
The European Commission opened an investigation into Apple after a complaint from Spotify in 2019. The probe was narrowed down to focus on contractual restrictions that Apple imposed on app developers which prevent them from informing iPhone and iPad users of alternative music subscription services at lower prices outside of the App Store.
Apple’s conduct lasted almost 10 years, according to the commission, and “may have led many iOS users to pay significantly higher prices for music streaming subscriptions because of the high commission fee imposed by Apple on developers and passed on to consumers in the form of higher subscription prices for the same service on the Apple App Store.”
Apple response
In a fiery response to the fine, Apple said Spotify would stand to gain the most from the EU pronouncement.
“The primary advocate for this decision — and the biggest beneficiary — is Spotify, a company based in Stockholm, Sweden. Spotify has the largest music streaming app in the world, and has met with the European Commission more than 65 times during this investigation,” Apple said in a statement.
“Today, Spotify has a 56 percent share of Europe’s music streaming market — more than double their closest competitor’s — and pays Apple nothing for the services that have helped make them one of the most recognisable brands in the world.”
Apple said that a “large part” of Spotify’s success is thanks to the Cupertino, California-based giant’s App Store, “along with all the tools and technology that Spotify uses to build, update, and share their app with Apple users around the world.”
Apple said that Spotify pays it nothing. That’s because instead of selling subscriptions in their iOS app, Spotify sell them via their own website stead. Apple does not collect a commission on those purchases.
Developers over the years have spoken out against the 30% fee Apple charges on in-app purchases.
Spotify in a statement called the commission’s decision “an important moment in the fight for a more open internet for consumers.”
“Apple’s rules muzzled Spotify and other music streaming services from sharing with our users directly in our app about various benefits—denying us the ability to communicate with them about how to upgrade and the price of subscriptions, promotions, discounts, or numerous other perks,” Spotify said.
“Of course, Apple Music, a competitor to these apps, is not barred from the same behaviour.”
Apple fine just a ‘parking ticket’
The commission said Apple prevented developers of music streaming apps from informing their iOS users within their apps about prices of subscriptions or offers available elsewhere.
App developers could not include links in their apps leading iOS users to the app developers’ websites where alternative subscription could be bought, the commission alleges.
The EU’s executive arm also said Apple prevented app developers from contacting their own newly acquired users — for example via email — to inform them about alternative pricing options.
In a press briefing, EU antitrust chief Margrethe Vestager qualified the basic amount of the fine for Apple, excluding the 1.8 billion euro lump sum, as “quite small” and likened it to a “speeding ticket, or a parking ticket” relative to the company’s scale.
“When Apple imposes these anti-steering provisions on the music provider, they as developers have no other choice than to either accept them or abandon the App store. Apple with its App Store currently holds a monopoly,” Vestager said.
She added the commission has ordered Apple to remove the so-called anti-steering provisions and to “refrain from similar practices in the future.”
EU scrutiny on tech giants rises
The fine will ramp up tensions between Big Tech and Brussels at a time when the EU is increasing scrutiny of these firms.
Last year, the commission designated Apple among other tech firms like Microsoft and Meta as “gatekeepers” under a landmark regulation called the Digital Markets Act, which broadly came into effect last year.
The term gatekeepers refers to massive internet platforms which the EU believes are restricting access to core platform services, such as online search, advertising, and messaging and communications.
The Digital Markets Act aims to clamp down on anti-competitive practices from tech players, and force them to open out some of their services to other competitors. Smaller internet firms and other businesses have complained about being hurt by these companies’ business practices.
These laws have already had an impact on Apple. The company announced plans this year to open up its iPhone and iPad to alternative app stores other than its own. Developers have long complained about the 30% fee Apple charges on in-app purchases.
Vestager fired a warning shot to Apple in regard to the DMA.
“In a couple of days on the 7th of March, Apple will have to comply with the full list of dos and don’ts under the DMA. Among others, Apple can no longer impose rules such as the anti-steering obligations … and this holds for any app on the App Store, not just music streaming apps.”
— CNBC’s Ryan Browne and Ruxandra Iordache contributed to this article.
CoreWeave‘s stock dropped 14% after the renter of artificial intelligence data centers reported a bigger-than-expected loss.
In its second quarterly financial results as a public company, CoreWeave reported an adjusted loss of 27 cents per share, compared to a 21-cent loss per share expected by analysts polled by LSEG.
CoreWeave’s results came as the lock-up period following its initial public offering is set to expire Thursday evening and potentially add volatility to shares. The term refers to a set period of time following a market debut when insiders are restricted from selling shares.
“We remain constructive long term and are encouraged by today’s data points, but see near-term upside capped by the potential CORZ related dilution and uncertainty, and the pending lock-up expiration on Thursday,” wrote analysts at Stifel, referencing the recent acquisition of Core Scientific.
Shares of Core Scientific fell 7% Wednesday.
In the current quarter, the company projects $1.26 billion to $1.30 billion in revenue. Analysts polled by LSEG forecasted $1.25 billion. CoreWeave also lifted 2025 revenue guidance to between $5.15 billion and $5.35, up from a $4.9 billion to $5.1 billion forecast provided in May and above a $5.05 billion estimate.
Some analysts were hoping for stronger guidance given the stock’s massive surge since going public in March. Others highlighted light capital expenditures guidance and a delay in some spending until the fourth quarter as a potential point of weakness.
“This delay in capex highlights the uncertainty around deployment time; as go-live timing is pushed, in-period revenue recognition will be smaller,” wrote analysts at Morgan Stanley.
The AI infrastructure provider said revenue more than tripled from a year ago to $1.21 billion as it continues to benefit from surging AI demand. That also surpassed a $1.08 billion forecast from Wall Street. Finance chief Nitin Agrawal also said during a call with analysts that demand outweighs supply.
The New Jersey-based company, whose customers include OpenAI, Microsoft and Nvidia, also said it has recently signed expansion deals with hyperscale customers.
CoreWeave acquired AI model monitoring startup Weights and Biases for $1.4 billion during the period and said it finished the quarter with a $30.1 billion revenue backlog.
Coreweave stock 6-month chart.
Apple CEO Tim Cook (R) shakes hands with U.S. President Donald Trump during an event in the Oval Office of the White House on August 6, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Win Mcnamee | Getty Images
Top tech executives are at the forefront of a recent swathe of unprecedented deals with U.S. President Donald Trump.
In just the last few days, the White House confirmed that two U.S. chipmakers, Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, would be allowed to sell advanced chips to China in exchange for the U.S. government receiving a 15% cut of their revenues in the Asian country.
Apple CEO Tim Cook, meanwhile, recently announced plans to increase the firm’s U.S. investment commitment to $600 billion over the next four years. The move was widely seen as a bid to get the tech giant out of Trump’s crosshairs on tariffs — and appears to have worked for now.
Altogether, analysts say the deals show just how important it is for the world’s largest companies to find some tariff relief.
“The flurry of deal-making is an effort to secure lighter treatment from tariffs,” Paolo Pescatore, technology analyst at PP Foresight, told CNBC by email.
“In some shape or form, all of the big tech companies have been negatively impacted by tariffs. They can ill afford to fork out on millions of dollars in additional fees that will further dent profits as underlined by recent quarterly earnings,” Pescatore said.
While the devil will be in the detail of these agreements, Pescatore said that Apple leading the way with its accelerated U.S. investment will likely trigger “a domino effect” within the industry.
Apple, for its part, has long been regarded as one of the Big Tech firms most vulnerable to simmering trade tensions between the U.S. and China.
Earlier this month, Trump announced plans to impose a 100% tariff on imports of semiconductors and chips, albeit with an exemption for firms that are “building in the United States.”
Apple, which relies on hundreds of different chips for its devices and incurred $800 million in tariff costs in the June quarter, is among the firms exempt from the proposed tariffs.
A ‘hands-on’ approach
The Nvidia and AMD deal with the Trump administration has meanwhile sparked intense debate over the potential impact on the chip giants’ businesses and whether the U.S. government may seek out similar agreements with other firms.
Some strategists described the arrangement as a “shakedown,” while others suggested it may even be unconstitutional and comparing it to a tax on exports.
White House spokesperson Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday that the legality and mechanics of the 15% export tax on Nvidia and AMD were “still being ironed out.” She also hinted deals of this kind could expand to other companies in future.
Ray Wang, founder and chairman of Constellation Research, described the Nvidia and AMD deal to pay 15% of China chip sales revenues to the U.S. government as “bizarre.”
Speaking on CNBC’s “Squawk Box” on Monday, Wang said what is “really weird” is there is still some uncertainty over whether these chips represent a national security issue.
“If the answer is no, fine OK. The government is taking a cut out of it,” Wang said. “Both Nvidia’s Jensen Huang and Lisa Su at AMD both decided that OK, we’ve got a way to get our chips into China and maybe there is something good coming out of it.”
Investor concerns
While investors initially welcomed the deal as broadly positive for both Nvidia and AMD, which once more secure access to the Chinese market, Wang said some in the industry will nevertheless be concerned.
“As an investor, you’re worried because then, is this an arbitrary decision by the government? Does every president get to play kingmaker in terms of these deals?” Wang said.
“So, I think that’s really what the concern is, and we still have additional tariffs and trade deals to come from the China negotiations,” he added.
Looking ahead, Dan Niles, founder and portfolio manager at Niles Investment Management, said the question for investors is whether the Trump administration’s “hands-on” approach is positive or negative for U.S. companies.
“I think for each company, it is very different. So, it certainly it is something I take into account. The bigger thing for me is do you have some stability of policy? Do you have a policy one week and then it flips the next?” Niles told CNBC’s “Closing Bell: Overtime” on Monday. “Right now, that is what concerns me a little bit more.”
— CNBC’s Arjun Kharpal and Kif Leswing contributed to this report.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike