According to MacRumors, Epic Games CEO Tim Sweeney announced on social media that Fortnite will not launch on iOS in Japan as previously promised. This reversal comes directly from Apple’s new fee structure designed to comply with Japan’s Mobile Software Competition Act (MSCA), which passed in 2024. Sweeney specifically blasted a 5% fee on revenue from apps distributed through third-party marketplaces and a 15% fee on digital purchases via web links if distributed through Apple’s own App Store. He had originally pledged a late 2025 launch for Fortnite in Japan before seeing Apple’s compliance plan. Now, Epic says it will file complaints with the Japanese Fair Trade Commission, accusing Apple of “gross disrespect” and launching a “travesty of obstruction.”
The Fee Fight Goes Global
Here’s the thing: this isn’t really about Japan. It’s the latest front in a global war over what “compliance” with new digital competition laws actually means. Apple’s playbook, as seen first in the EU and now in Japan, seems pretty consistent. Regulators force them to open up? Fine. They’ll just erect a new toll booth on the newly opened road. A 5% “Core Technology Commission” in the EU starting in 2026, a 5% fee for third-party marketplace revenue in Japan—the numbers are eerily similar. For a company like Epic, which runs its own store, that’s a direct tax on their entire business model in that region. Sweeney’s argument is simple: how can you call it real competition if the gatekeeper you’re competing with still gets to skim a significant cut of all your sales?
Winners, Losers, and Regulatory Limits
So who wins here? In the short term, arguably no one. Japanese iPhone gamers who were waiting for Fortnite lose out. Epic loses a major market. And Apple gets another public black eye and more regulatory scrutiny, even if it claims it “worked with Japanese regulators” on these rules. But this clash reveals the inherent tension in these laws. Japan’s MSCA, like the EU’s DMA, allows Apple to charge for its “intellectual property” and to refuse requests on security grounds. That gives Apple a lot of legal room to maneuver. The big question is: did regulators intend for that compensation to be a flat revenue share on every transaction happening outside its walled garden? Probably not. But that’s the loophole Apple is driving a truck through. It’s a brilliant, if infuriating, strategy. They’re technically complying while making the alternative so financially unattractive that it might as well not exist.
What Happens Next?
Epic’s complaint to the Japanese Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) is the next logical step, but it’s a gamble. Will the JFTC see Apple’s 5% fee as a reasonable charge for IP and platform access, or as the “competition-crushing” junk fee Sweeney calls it? The outcome will set a massive precedent. If Apple’s fees stand in Japan and solidify in the EU, it effectively creates a new global standard for “open” platforms—one where the incumbent’s revenue is protected. That could chill the entire market for third-party stores. Other developers might look at the math and just stick with the traditional 15-30% App Store commission. After all, why go through the hassle of building and maintaining your own distribution for a single-digit savings that Apple can change at any time? The promise of these competition laws was a vibrant, diverse ecosystem. The reality, so far, is looking more like a calculated, fee-permitted duopoly between platform owners and the largest developers who can afford to run their own shops. For the rest of the app economy, not much changes.
