Korea BMCC: Google & Apple fined ~₩63.7B — third-party payments “allowed” under terms that still steered developers

Korea’s BMCC finalized ~₩63.7B sanctions on Google and Apple for “allowing” third-party payments while stacking high fees, feature withhold, and heavier UX — so choice on paper is not choice in practice; corrective orders now force payment-choice and review-delay fixes, and Apple’s domestic-vs-overseas fee VAT basis was ruled discriminatory.

Financial News reports the Broadcasting and Media Communications Commission (BMCC) finalized combined fines of about 63.71 billion won after finding that both companies effectively forced developers toward specific payment methods — even where third-party payments were nominally allowed. BMCC accepted Apple’s superior bargaining position as the sole iOS distribution channel, and rejected Google’s “we allow third-party” defense as force in practice.

What “allowed” looked like in practice

BMCC’s cost argument matters for ops: once PG fees, payment-system build/ops, and settlement costs are stacked, third-party can be more expensive than platform IAP — so permission without workable economics is not a real choice.

Review delays as a conduct issue

The same package covered unjustified app-review delays: when reviews slipped, Google and Apple allegedly failed to give clear reasons or expected timelines even after developer inquiries. BMCC treated that opacity as something that can disrupt developer operations — not a soft courtesy issue.

Apple fee VAT basis (domestic vs overseas)

For July 2015 through January 2023, BMCC found Apple charged overseas developers 30% on the supply price excluding VAT, while charging domestic developers 30% on the final consumer price including VAT. Apple pointed to VAT Act amendments; BMCC still found the discriminatory basis unlawful under the Telecommunications Business Act and ordered recurrence prevention.

Corrective orders (and what was not done)

BMCC ordered Google and Apple to improve policies that restrict payment-method choice and to improve app-review procedures. Apple must also prevent a recurrence of the fee discrimination. The commission did not file criminal complaints, finding severity did not meet that threshold.

Timeline context (same report): after the 2021 Act amendment, inspections led to proposed corrective measures in October 2023 and July 2024; committee formation delays pushed finalization until after BMCC reconstituted in April 2026, with company hearings around August and final sanctions in late October 2026. Policy clocks in this domain are measured in years, not news cycles. The same report notes a Google March payment overhaul and Apple voluntary plans; BMCC will keep monitoring.

Self-check (executable · KR / multi-market payments)

• ☐ If you market “third-party / alt billing available,” document the all-in stack: platform fee + PG + build/ops + settlement — not the headline permission alone
• ☐ Inventory feature parity: subscription management, receipts, refunds, price display — what users lose off-platform IAP
• ☐ Track review-delay inquiries: written reason + expected timeline; keep a dated log (ops hygiene, not a KR SLA promise)
• ☐ For Apple KR history windows: confirm which fee tax basis your contracts/invoices actually used; do not assume domestic and overseas rows match
• ☐ Soft-read the sibling EU external-payment Insights before treating one region’s remedy as a global template
• ☐ Do not treat a corrective order as “IAP abolished” — monitor what actually ships in console policy text

Soft-links

Sibling leaves only. Their bodies are not restated here.

• EU Commission / DMA external-payment track: Apple EU business terms and external payments · ZH. This leaf is the KR BMCC sanctions package — paper choice versus the third-party terms that still steered developers. That leaf is the Commission / DMA track.
• US Play reporting window: Play US alternative billing reporting window · ZH. That leaf is US reporting-window ops. This leaf is the KR sanctions decision.

What this leaf is not

• On these facts, the order is a corrective package around payment choice and review process. It does not read as “IAP abolished,” and these fine amounts are not a template other markets must copy.
• Not a reprint of the EU external-payment Insights or the US Play reporting-window Insights.
• No criminal complaint was filed. No appeal outcome is stated here. No tax opinion, and no live fee card beyond the report.
• Review-delay opacity is the conduct finding. It is not a numeric review SLA.

Sources

1. Financial News — Google and Apple fined 63.7 billion won over abusive in-app payment practices (2026-10-28)

Policy education only — not legal advice and not tax advice.

← Back to Policy Insights