Malicious Compliance: Difference between revisions

Line 1:

Malicious compliance is an action where one complies with a request or demand, but in such a way that it ~~causes issues~~ to the ~~one requesting~~.

Malicious compliance is an action where one complies with a request or demand, but in such a way that it follows the wording, but not the spirit or intent of the mandate.

Applied to consumer rights, this means a manufacturer or brand complies with regulations in word, but not in spirit, thus rendering the regulation ineffective.

Some common practices include making it intentionally difficult for a consumer to exercise their rights through use of [[Dark pattern|dark patterns]], obstacles such requiring communication by letter, imposing fees, requiring registration and many more.

== Prominent Examples ==

* [[Apple]]: After being required by the EU to open up their devices to apps sold outside the [[Apple App Store]], the company created a multitude of hurdles, fees and complications to make it as difficult as possible for developers to actually do this, including a requirement that every independently distributed app stil be approved by Apple and fees be paid by the developer.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mendes |first=Marcus |date=2025-05-27 |title=EU ruling: Apple’s App Store still in violation of DMA, 30 days to comply |url=https://9to5mac.com/2025/05/27/apple-dma-30-days-deadline/ |access-date=2025-08-29 |website=9to5Mac}}</ref>

* [[Apple]]: After the EU mandated USB-C as a charging port for all phones, Apple explored various ways to still require cable and accessorty manufacturers to go through their costly [[Made for iPhone]] certification programmes and require consumers to still buy additional cables and accessories.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Roberts |first=Paul |date=2023-09-12 |title=Will Apple Use a Loophole in EU’s USB-C Requirement? |url=https://de.ifixit.com/News/81197/will-apple-use-a-loophole-in-eus-usb-c-requirement |access-date=2025-08-29 |website=iFixit}}</ref>

[[Category:Common terms]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {{Stub}}
-Malicious compliance is an action where one complies with a request or demand, but in such a way that it causes issues to the one requesting.
+Malicious compliance is an action where one complies with a request or demand, but in such a way that it follows the wording, but not the spirit or intent of the mandate.
+Applied to consumer rights, this means a manufacturer or brand complies with regulations in word, but not in spirit, thus rendering the regulation ineffective.
+Some common practices include making it intentionally difficult for a consumer to exercise their rights through use of [[Dark pattern|dark patterns]], obstacles such requiring communication by letter, imposing fees, requiring registration and many more.
+== Prominent Examples ==
+* [[Apple]]: After being required by the EU to open up their devices to apps sold outside the [[Apple App Store]], the company created a multitude of hurdles, fees and complications to make it as difficult as possible for developers to actually do this, including a requirement that every independently distributed app stil be approved by Apple and fees be paid by the developer.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Mendes |first=Marcus |date=2025-05-27 |title=EU ruling: Apple’s App Store still in violation of DMA, 30 days to comply |url=https://9to5mac.com/2025/05/27/apple-dma-30-days-deadline/ |access-date=2025-08-29 |website=9to5Mac}}</ref>
+* [[Apple]]: After the EU mandated USB-C as a charging port for all phones, Apple explored various ways to still require cable and accessorty manufacturers to go through their costly [[Made for iPhone]] certification programmes and require consumers to still buy additional cables and accessories.<ref>{{Cite web |last=Roberts |first=Paul |date=2023-09-12 |title=Will Apple Use a Loophole in EU’s USB-C Requirement? |url=https://de.ifixit.com/News/81197/will-apple-use-a-loophole-in-eus-usb-c-requirement |access-date=2025-08-29 |website=iFixit}}</ref>
 [[Category:Common terms]]