Apple App Store Brazil Alternative App Stores: What Developers Pay

Apple has opened iOS to rival app stores and alternative payment processors in Brazil and structured the terms so it collects a fee on every digital transaction, whether or not its store or payment system touches the sale. The changes took effect yesterday with iOS 26.5. All alternative distribution must run through an Apple-authorized marketplace; every app distributed outside the App Store still passes through Apple's Notarization process, a combination of automated scans and human review, per Apple's announcement.

The rollout follows a cease-and-desist agreement Apple signed with CADE, Brazil's competition authority, last December, ending a three-year investigation into Apple's mandatory payment processing and anti-steering rules. CADE's tribunal had described Apple's model as a "closed and vertically integrated ecosystem" that compelled developers to rely on the App Store and locked consumers in through switching costs, according to an International Center for Law and Economics analysis published last month. Non-compliance with the settlement carries fines of up to $27 million, The Next Web reported.

Brazil now joins the EU, Japan, and South Korea as jurisdictions where Apple has been compelled to permit third-party iOS distribution, per The Next Web.

What Brazil's regulatory pressure forced Apple to change on iOS

Brazilian developers can now distribute apps through alternative marketplaces, operate their own stores, and accept payments for digital goods without routing them through Apple's In-App Purchase system all previously prohibited on iOS, Apple's newsroom confirmed.

CADE didn't wait for a settlement to force Apple's hand. Interim measures issued in November 2024 ordered Apple to suspend anti-steering rules and App Store exclusivity, backed by daily fines of roughly $46,000, the ICLE analysis notes. The December 2025 settlement replaced those measures with binding commitments and a 105-day implementation deadline.

The opening has firm limits. Users cannot download apps directly from the web; all alternative distribution must run through an Apple-authorized marketplace. Apple's terms mirror those it introduced in Japan last year rather than the EU model, 9to5Mac reports the structural approach is similar across markets, but the fee schedule tracks Japan more closely than the EU, which matters for what developers actually pay.

Apple Brazil App Store rules: what developers pay under the new terms

Scenario A: App Store, Apple IAP

A developer in Apple's Small Business Program stays in the App Store and uses Apple's payment processing. They pay a 10% commission plus a 5% processing fee 15% combined on digital goods transactions, per Apple's announcement. Developers outside qualifying programs pay 21% plus the same 5% processing fee. Apple states that every developer selling digital goods in Brazil will pay "the same or less" than under the previous standard rate.

One discrepancy worth flagging: Apple's newsroom specifies the standard commission at 21%, while The Next Web reports it as 25%. Both accounts are attributed to the same underlying terms, and the gap is unresolved. Apple's primary terms are cited here as the authoritative source, but that four-percentage-point difference is not trivial for larger developers calculating their exposure.

Scenario B: App Store, external payment link

A developer keeps their app on the App Store but links users to a website to complete the transaction outside Apple's system. Apple collects 15% on those web transactions, or 10% for small businesses and qualifying subscription renewals, according to Apple. Apple loses the processing fee in this path but retains a platform commission on the sale. Developers using a third-party in-app payment system pay a commission of between 10% and 21%; those linking to external payment options pay between 10% and 18%, 9to5Mac notes.

Scenario C: Alternative marketplace, own payment system

A developer distributes entirely outside the App Store through a rival marketplace and processes payments independently. Apple still collects a 5% Core Technology Commission on digital goods sales meaning Apple takes a cut even when both its store and its payment processor are absent from the transaction, confirmed by Apple and reported by 9to5Mac.

For most small developers, Brazil's terms offer incremental savings over the old 30% headline rate. For large publishers or anyone looking to build a rival marketplace, the 5% levy on off-platform commerce sitting on top of the authorization process and mandatory Notarization is where the economic friction concentrates. The terms reduce Apple's take at the margin. They don't eliminate it.

Consumer-facing tradeoffs

Users who pay through alternative processors or web links lose access to Apple's refund system, subscription management tools, and fraud-dispute support, Apple acknowledges. Apps using third-party payments must present them alongside Apple IAP, so users can see when they're transacting outside Apple's system.

Child safety rules further constrain the competitive footprint of alternative payments. Apps using alternative payment processing must include a parental gate for users under 18, and apps in the Kids category cannot link to external websites for transactions at all, per Apple's announcement. Apple points to what happened after similar regulatory changes in Europe and Japan, where the openings enabled app categories including pornography previously unavailable on iOS, citing this as evidence of genuine risk from looser controls.

Why critics say the terms are designed to limit competition, not enable it

The Coalition for App Fairness whose founding members include Basecamp, Epic Games, Spotify, and Proton issued a direct rejection of Apple's framing. The new terms "don't create an open and competitive app ecosystem in Brazil," the group said in a statement to 9to5Mac, adding that developers who choose alternative stores or payments "are penalized for doing so with high fees and overbearing tracking requirements" and that the policy "prevents innovation in app stores with a significant new tax on commerce."

Epic was more pointed. The company called the Brazil terms "the same anticompetitive policies" Apple is "trying to get away with in Japan," warning that Brazilian consumers will likely face "a similar burdensome third party app store install flow that Apple requires in Japan" a process Epic argues is "intentionally designed to thwart competition," 9to5Mac reported.

Apple's counter-position mirrors what it argued about Japan: that its voluntary Brazil terms offer better conditions than what the EU's Digital Markets Act legally requires, per 9to5Mac.

The difficulty for regulators is that Apple's authorization requirement, Notarization mandate, and ongoing 5% commission on off-platform commerce each serve two plausible functions simultaneously: consumer protection and competitive friction. Proving that a safety requirement is calibrated primarily to deter rivals rather than protect users requires a level of economic specificity that most antitrust proceedings struggle to sustain. That is exactly the question CADE's compliance review will need to answer.

The first real test comes when Epic opens its store in Brazil

Epic confirmed this week it is moving "full speed ahead" to bring the Epic Games Store to iPhones in Brazil within the next few months, 9to5Mac reported. That launch will be the first real-world stress test of Apple's marketplace authorization process and of whether Brazilian consumers will navigate a third-party install flow in meaningful numbers.

The more immediate deadline: all Apple Developer Program members in Brazil must accept a revised license agreement by July 6, 2026. Those who do not will be locked out of the new distribution and payment options, per The Next Web.

The open question is whether a 5% commission on fully off-platform sales, combined with mandatory marketplace authorization and Notarization, will prevent rival stores from reaching scale or whether serious players can absorb it as a cost of entry. If CADE concludes that Apple's fee structure defeats the purpose of the settlement, a second enforcement round becomes plausible. That pattern formal compliance challenged on economic substance is the one to watch across the EU, Japan, and Brazil over the next year or two.