Apple's full compliance with new Chinese internet regulations, which require app providers to register with the government, stands in stark contrast to the company's handling of the Digital Markets Act (DMA) in the EU, where it has faced criticism for manipulating rules. This dichotomy in Apple's actions isn't merely about its ability to challenge regulations or engage in legal battles in the EU while succumbing to demands in China. It highlights a difference in incentives. Apple demonstrates its willingness to allocate resources and exert efforts to safeguard profits and protect its corporate interests, including in China. However, the company remains inactive in addressing users' interests and fundamental rights.

In August 2023, China’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) announced that all mobile app providers must register their business details with the government. The MIIT said that apps without proper filings would be punished after a grace period ending in March 2024.

Apple now requires developers to submit an "internet content provider (ICP) filing" for publishing new apps on its App Store, as stated on its developer website, and has already removed several apps from its China App Store, including high-profile social media and communication apps such as Threads and WhatsApp.

However, Apple has not significantly pushed back on the coercive law. Apart from meetings with Chinese officials around the time of the announcement, the details of which remain unknown, Apple merely reiterated its compliance with the laws of each country where it operates.

Apple’s Double Standards

At the same time those regulations were announced last year, in July 2023, Apple was reportedly threatening to shut down iMessage and FaceTime in the U.K. in response to plans to increase government surveillance powers.

Apple's approach to China significantly differs from its interactions with Western governments or regulatory bodies such as the European Commission.

While Apple has systematically complied with Beijing's strict regulations—purging its China App Store of all VPNs since 2017 and removing messaging apps, human rights-focused media, and other services targeted by the Chinese state—it has deployed considerable efforts to push back on regulations it views as contrary to its interests.

Corporate interest is the crux of Apple’s every move, legal action, and statement. Even when Apple invokes “users’ rights,” it is always about the company's financial interests.

Apple's so-called “compliance” with the DMA has proved to be anything but genuine and driven by Apple’s desire to retain as much control as possible, not by users' interests.

The Digital Markets Act (DMA) became law on September 14, 2022, and designated gatekeepers were given six months to comply. Apple, expected to be a gatekeeper, had almost 18 months to make the necessary changes. Instead, Apple tried to undermine the DMA by claiming Safari is multiple browsers, separating iPadOS from iOS despite their functional similarity (a tactic that failed as the EU regulated iPad under the DMA), adding extremely onerous, unfair, and likely illegal terms to their API access contracts for third-party browsers using their own engine, locking changes to only the iPhone and the EU, and effectively banning browsers from listing on alternative app stores on iOS.

While Apple was revealing its bogus implementation of the DMA, CEO Tim Cook participated in the China Development Forum, an annual gathering of business leaders and Chinese officials. Cook enthusiastically remarked how “vibrant and so dynamic” China was, in an ironic juxtaposition to Apple's renewed cooperation with app censorship in China, underscoring a significant discrepancy between the company’s public expressions and its business practices.

Apple Can Do Much More to Push Back in China

Defenders of Apple, or “realists,” argue that Apple does what it can given the different contexts in which it operates, implying it pushes for users’ interests whenever possible. They claim that because Chinese authorities give Apple no room to negotiate, it must comply with the law, as it does everywhere else. This could not be farther from reality.

Apple can and has challenged regulations in China for many years, but only to protect its own interests, not users’:

• In 2011 and 2012, it defended its right to use the “IPAD” trademark in Guangdong after being sued by a Shenzhen-based company. Apple shares rose 1.3 percent following a $60 million court-mediated settlement.
• It also sued a Sichuan-based food company, Sichuan Fangguo Food Co., Ltd, for having a logo too similar to its own.
• In 2014, Apple sued the China National Intellectual Property Administration and a domestic company over patent rights for its "Siri" personal assistant.
• In 2017, Apple sued Chinese phone maker Baili and the Beijing Intellectual Property (IP) Bureau after the latter demanded stopping iPhone sales.

However, when it comes to users’ rights, Apple doesn’t take action. When the Cyberspace Administration of China (CAC) orders Apple to take down apps, whether targeted or en masse, Apple complies without challenging the authorities.

Apple Should Stand for Human Rights in China

By exploiting democratic norms and yielding to authoritarian demands, Apple sets a troubling precedent that threatens users’ rights and freedoms, risking the encouragement of similar practices among other multinational corporations.

To mitigate the negative impact of China's regulatory landscape and restore stakeholder trust, Apple should file legal challenges against unconstitutional decisions, as TikTok is doing in the U.S., or at least bring cases to lower-level courts initially.

Apple cannot claim it is trying to push back behind the curtains; that no longer works. Proof of its actions is needed.

While the results of these litigations might be predictable, the primary goal is to gain visibility and exposure for these issues. Even if the efforts are largely symbolic, they can ignite both local and international discussions, effectively making a strong point and potentially influencing future regulatory practices.

Furthermore, Apple should detail the specific reasons behind individual app takedowns, citing relevant laws and policies. Even if Apple must adhere to China's regulations, adopting a 'transparency strategy'—providing detailed explanations instead of vague references to legal or security issues—could open opportunities for public scrutiny of the Chinese government's actions.

Finally, implementing sideloading on iOS worldwide would significantly mitigate censorship efforts not only in China but also in other authoritarian regimes, expanding users' access to information and promoting digital freedom globally. Apple could adopt a unified approach that equally considers everyone's fundamental rights, fostering global freedom of information and thought. This strategy would incidentally empower Chinese users by providing broader access to diverse content and perspectives, which is crucial in an increasingly restrictive internet environment.