Connect with us

Published

on

Apple has been fined €1.8bn (£1.54bn) by the EU for favouring its own music streaming service rather than rivals.

Apple did not fully inform their device users there were alternative and cheaper subscription services for more than a decade, said the EU executive, the European Commission.

Money blog: Holidays get cheaper as pound strengthens – except in these four countries

As a result, iPhone and iPad users paid “significantly higher prices for music streaming subscriptions”, it said, and Apple abused its dominant position as the provider of music streaming services in its app store.

The fine has been issued due to a complaint by streaming service Spotify which then launched a five-year EU investigation focused on how Apple prevented app developers from telling users of cheaper ways to pay for subscriptions without going through an app.

It found that Apple stopped streaming services, such as Spotify, from letting users know the cost of non-Apple subscription offers.

Penalty much larger than expected to have deterrent effect



Ian King

Business presenter

@iankingsky

It’s a pretty significant number.

Most people thought that the EU was going to fine Apple for this particular breach of its anti-trust rules but the number that was doing the rounds was round €500m, so to come in at €1.8bn is a thumping penalty indeed.

The EU is making the point that the reason the fine was so big partly was as a deterrent against future anti-competitive behaviour but the second point was because Apple filed incorrect information while it was going back and forth with the European Commission on this.

At the heart of this is the fact that Apple did not make clear to its users that music streaming was available through other app stores other than its own.

Interestingly, Spotify actually doesn’t sell subscriptions through Apple’s app store, which is something that’s got Apple particularly hot under the collar and it will appeal against the decision accordingly.

It’s worth pointing out that under the EU’s new Digital Markets Act, which was passed at the end of last year and comes into effect later this week, Apple will have to allow other app stores onto its iOS operating system so in theory, this sort of breach shouldn’t happen again.

Apple is likely to appeal against this ruling and it could go through European courts. It could take years, effectively.

The tech giant banned app makers from “fully informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services outside of the app,” said the EU’s competition commissioner, Margrethe Vestager.

More on Apple

“This is illegal, and it has impacted millions of European consumers.”

To comply with the finding, Apple said it will allow iPhone users in Europe to use app stores other than its own and enable developers to offer alternative payment systems.

It is likely it will appeal.

“The decision was reached despite the commission’s failure to uncover any credible evidence of consumer harm, and ignores the realities of a market that is thriving, competitive, and growing fast.”

While the sum is significant, it accounts for only 0.5% of Apple’s worldwide revenue and it could have been fined 10% of global turnover.

There’s going to be a direct benefit to the UK from the fine. As it was still a member of the EU when the investigation was launched and Apple was perpetrating the wrong, it will be one of the 28 countries sharing in the sum Apple pays.

Sales through the app store are a lucrative part of Apple’s business as it charges 30% fee on all purchases.

It’s the first time it has been subject to an EU anti-monopoly law levy and the third largest one issued by the commission.

The largest was the €4.34bn (£3.8bn) issued against Google for abusing its control of the Android operating system by forcing vendors to pre-install apps.

From Thursday this week such examinations and fines will not take place as mobile phone makers will be required to have other payment methods and app stores within their operating systems as part of the Digital Markets Act.

Continue Reading

Business

Harrods plots legal action against estate of former owner al-Fayed

Published

on

By

Harrods plots legal action against estate of former owner al-Fayed

Harrods is preparing to take legal action against the estate of its former owner, Mohamed al-Fayed, as the multimillion-pound legal bill for compensating his sexual abuse victims continues to escalate.

Sky News has learnt that the Knightsbridge department store, which has been owned by a Qatari sovereign wealth fund since 2010, plans to file a so-called passing-over application in the High Court as early as next week.

The intention of the application is to secure the removal of Mr al-Fayed‘s estate’s current executors, and replace them with professional executors to administer it instead.

Professional executors would be expected to investigate the assets and liabilities of the estate, while Harrods insiders claimed that the current executors – thought to be close family members of the deceased billionaire – had “ignored” correspondence from its lawyers.

Sources close to Harrods said the passing-over application paved the way for it to potentially seek to recover substantial sums from the estate of the Egyptian tycoon as it contends with a compensation bill likely to run to tens of millions of pounds.

In a statement issued to Sky News on Saturday, a Harrods spokesperson said: “We are considering legal options that would ensure that no doors are closed on any future action and that a route to compensation and accountability from the Fayed estate remains open to all.”

Mr al-Fayed is believed to have raped or sexually abused hundreds of women during his 25-year tenure as the owner of Harrods.

More on Mohamed Al Fayed

He died in 2023, since when a torrent of details of his abuse have been made public by many of his victims.

Earlier this year, Sky News revealed details of the compensation scheme designed by Harrods to award six-figure sums to women he abused.

In a form outlining the details of the Harrods redress scheme overseen by MPL Legal, which is advising the department store, it referred to the potential “for Harrods to recover compensation paid out under this Scheme from Mohamed Fayed’s estate”.

“You are not obliged to assist with any such claim for recovery,” the form told potential claimants.

“However, if you would be willing to assist Harrods including potentially by giving evidence against Fayed’s estate, please indicate below.”

This weekend, there appeared to be confusion about the legal representation of Mr al-Fayed’s estate.

In March, the BBC reported that Fladgate, a UK-based law firm, was representing it in an article which said that women who worked for him as nannies and private air stewards were preparing to file legal claims against the estate.

This weekend, however, a spokesman for Fladgate declined to comment on whether it was acting for Mr al-Fayed’s estate, citing confidentiality restrictions.

A source close to the law firm, meanwhile, insisted that it was not acting for the estate.

KP Law, another law firm acting for some al-Fayed abuse survivors, has criticised the Harrods-orchestrated process, but has itself faced questions over proposals to take up to 25% of compensation awards in exchange for handling their cases.

Harrods insiders said there was a growing risk that Mr al-Fayed’s estate would not be responsibly administered given that the second anniversary of his death was now approaching.

They added that as well as Harrods itself seeking contribution for compensation paid out for Mr al-Fayed’s abuse, its legal action would also potentially open way for survivors to claim directly against the estate.

Victims with no direct connection to Harrods are not eligible for any compensation through the store’s own redress scheme.

Even if Harrods’ passing-over application was approved by the High Court, any financial recovery for the department store would be subject to a number of additional legal steps, sources said.

“The passing-over action would achieve the goals of acknowledgement and accountability from the estate for survivors who don’t have the resource to undertake a passing-over application themselves,” an insider said this weekend.

Continue Reading

Business

High street lender Metro Bank receives takeover approach

Published

on

By

High street lender Metro Bank receives takeover approach

The high street lender Metro Bank has been approached about a private equity-backed takeover in a move that could lead to the disappearance of another company from the London Stock Exchange.

Sky News has learnt that Metro Bank was approached in the last fortnight about an offer to take it private spearheaded by the financial services-focused buyout firm Pollen Street Capital.

Pollen Street is one of the major shareholders in Shawbrook, the mid-sized bank which in the past has approached Metro Bank about a merger of the two companies.

In recent months, Shawbrook’s owners have stepped up efforts to identify a prospective corporate combination, holding tentative talks with Starling Bank about a £5bn tie-up, while also drawing up plans for a stock market listing.

The takeover approach to Metro Bank comes as it puts a traumatic period in which it came close to insolvency firmly behind it.

In November 2023, the lender was rescued through a £925m deal comprising £325m of equity – a third of which was contributed by Jaime Gilinski Bacal, a Colombian billionaire – and £600m of new debt.

Mr Gilinski now holds a near-53% stake through his investment vehicle, Spaldy Investments, and sits on the company’s board.

More from Money

Since the bailout deal, Metro Bank has cut hundreds of jobs and sold portfolios of loan assets, at the same time as chief executive Daniel Frumkin has improved its operating performance.

Shares in Metro Bank have more than trebled in the last year as its recovery has gathered pace.

On Friday, the stock closed at 112.2p, giving it a market capitalisation of just over £750m.

At one point in 2018, the lender – which promised to revolutionise retail banking when it opened its first branch in London in 2010 – had a market capitalisation of £3.5bn.

Metro Bank became the first new lender to open on Britain’s high streets in over 100 years when it launched in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis.

Its branch-based model, which included gimmicks such as offering dog biscuits, proved costly, however, at a time when many rivals have been shifting to digital banking.

Reporting first-quarter results last month, Mr Frumkin said: “During the first quarter of 2025, we have continued to deliver the strategic repositioning of Metro Bank’s business, maintaining strong cost control while driving higher net interest margin by changing the mix of assets and remaining disciplined about deposits.”

“We have seen further growth in our corporate and commercial lending, with Metro Bank’s relationship banking and breadth of services creating differentiation for us in the market.”

Metro Bank operates from about 75 branches across the country, and saw roughly 30,000 new personal and business current accounts opened during the last quarter.

In 2019, customers formed sizeable queues at some of its branches after suggestions circulated on social media that it was in financial distress.

Days later, it unveiled a £350m share placing in a move designed to allay such concerns.

The company has had a chequered history with City regulators, despite its relatively brief existence.

In 2022, it was fined £10m by the Financial Conduct Authority for publishing incorrect information to investors, while the PRA slapped it with a £5.4m penalty for similar infringements a year earlier.

The lender was founded in 2009 by Anthony Thompson, a financial services entrepreneur, and Vernon Hill, an American who eventually left in controversial circumstances in 2019.

Last month, it sailed through a shareholder vote unscathed after drawing opposition to a proposal which could see top executives paid up to £60m apiece.

Metro Bank and Pollen Street both declined to comment on Saturday

Continue Reading

Business

Rachel Reeves ‘a gnat’s whisker’ from having to raise taxes, says IFS

Published

on

By

Rachel Reeves 'a gnat's whisker' from having to raise taxes, says IFS

Rachel Reeves is a “gnat’s whisker” away from having to raise taxes in the autumn budget, a leading economist has warned – despite the chancellor insisting her plans are “fully funded”.

Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), said “any move in the wrong direction” for the economy before the next fiscal event would “almost certainly spark more tax rises”.

‘Sting in the tail’ in chancellor’s plans – politics latest

Speaking the morning after she delivered her spending review, which sets government budgets until 2029, Ms Reeves told Wilfred Frost hiking taxes wasn’t inevitable.

“Everything I set out yesterday was fully costed and fully funded,” she told Sky News Breakfast.

Her plans – which include £29bn for day-to-day NHS spending, £39bn for affordable and social housing, and boosts for defence and transport – are based on what she set out in October’s budget.

That budget, her first as chancellor, included controversial tax hikes on employers and increased borrowing to help public services.

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Spending review explained

Chancellor won’t rule out tax rises

The Labour government has long vowed not to raise taxes on “working people” – specifically income tax, national insurance for employees, and VAT.

Ms Reeves refused to completely rule out tax rises in her next budget, saying the world is “very uncertain”.

The Conservatives have claimed she will almost certainly have to put taxes up, with shadow chancellor Mel Stride accusing her of mismanaging the economy.

Taxes on businesses had “destroyed growth” and increased spending had been “inflationary”, he told Sky News.

New official figures showed the economy contracted in April by 0.3% – more than expected. It coincided with Donald Trump imposing tariffs across the world.

Ms Reeves admitted the figures were “disappointing” but pointed to more positive figures from previous months.

Read more:
Chancellor running out of levers to pull
Growth stats make for unpleasant reading
Your spending review questions answered

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Tories accuse Reeves over economy

‘Sting in the tail’

She is hoping Labour’s plans will provide more jobs and boost growth, with major infrastructure projects “spread” across the country – from the Sizewell C nuclear plant in Suffolk, to a rail line connecting Liverpool and Manchester.

But the IFS said further contractions in the economy, and poor forecasts from the Office for Budget Responsibility, would likely require the chancellor to increase the national tax take once again.

It said her spending review already accounted for a 5% rise in council tax to help local authorities, labelling it a “sting in the tail” after she told Sky’s Beth Rigby that it wouldn’t have to go up.

Continue Reading

Trending