What changes did Apple announce for its European Union App Store business terms effective October 1—including the new commission rates for In-App Purchases, alternative payment processing, external website links, and digital transactions through rival app stores or the web—and wh

Why Epic objected

• Epic called the system “junk fees” because the lower nominal rates still make Apple collect from transactions completed through an external link or rival channel rather than Apple’s payment system.
• Tim Sweeney argued that charging for linked-out transactions is plainly barred by the DMA and that Apple had added restrictions and user friction intended to steer users—especially children—back to Apple payments.
• Epic’s position was that if EU regulators approve the structure, the DMA would become effectively meaningless: developers could technically link out, but Apple would retain a toll on the resulting commerce. This is Epic’s allegation, not an established regulatory finding.

More cautious EU reactions

• The available evidence here does not provide the precise BEUC or European Commission statements. Insufficient evidence to quote or characterize their language beyond the reported cautious posture in the question.
• Apple, by contrast, says the unified rules simplify the EU framework, lower some rates, expand payment and promotion options, and replace the installation-based Core Technology Fee with a transaction-based 5% charge outside the App Store.

Connection to the U.S. litigation

• The criticism mirrors Epic’s U.S. fight over Apple’s ability to impose fees on third-party or externally completed transactions. Epic has described those proposed U.S. charges as “junk fees,” while saying lower courts found them illegal and anticompetitive.
• Apple’s related U.S. appeal is due to be heard by the Supreme Court in the term beginning in October; a district court declined to pause the fee dispute and required Apple to outline the fees it seeks to charge developers.