Malicious compliance: Difference between revisions
Deletion request. Concept is vague and does not directly relate to consumer rights |
→References: Archive |
||
| (9 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| 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 follows the wording, but not the spirit or intent of the mandate. | 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. | 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. | 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, [[Forced account|requiring registration]] and many more. | ||
==Prominent Examples== | ==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 still 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 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 still 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 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251218064032/https://9to5mac.com/2025/05/27/apple-dma-30-days-deadline/ |archive-date=18 Dec 2025}}</ref><ref>https://dev.to/1_king_0b1e1f8bfe6d1/how-ios-sideloading-actually-works-in-2025-dev-certs-altstore-and-the-eu-exception-1m2h ([http://web.archive.org/web/20250527082823/https://dev.to/1_king_0b1e1f8bfe6d1/how-ios-sideloading-actually-works-in-2025-dev-certs-altstore-and-the-eu-exception-1m2h Archived])</ref> | ||
*[[Apple]]: After the EU mandated USB-C as a charging port for all phones, Apple explored various ways to still require cable and | *[[Apple]]: After the EU mandated USB-C as a charging port for all phones, Apple explored various ways to still require cable and accessory 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 |archive-url=http://web.archive.org/web/20251010001231/https://de.ifixit.com/News/81197/will-apple-use-a-loophole-in-eus-usb-c-requirement |archive-date=10 Oct 2025}}</ref> | ||
*Other examples of malicious compliance are related to the willingness of companies to follow [[right to repair]] laws. Most notably of these companies are [[Apple]], [[Samsung]], and [[John Deere]].<ref> https://www.repair.org/blog/2024/1/26/malicious-compliance-with-right-to-repair-laws ([https://web.archive.org/web/20251205232819/https://www.repair.org/blog/2024/1/26/malicious-compliance-with-right-to-repair-laws Archived])</ref> | |||
==References== | |||
[[Category:Common terms]] | [[Category:Common terms]] | ||
<references /> | <references /> | ||
[[Category:Anti-consumer practices]] | |||
[[Category:Theme]] | |||
Latest revision as of 19:41, 5 April 2026
❗This article is a stub. You can help by expanding it.
A moderator needs to check the page before this notice can be removed. Visit the noticeboard or the
#appeals channel in either Zulip or Discord to request removal.More info ▼
An article may be flagged as a stub when it is missing major elements needed to make it useful to a reader. You can help by adding missing sections, verifiable sources, relevant company policies and communications, etc. to make the article more complete.
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 patterns, obstacles such requiring communication by letter, imposing fees, requiring registration and many more.
Prominent Examples
[edit | edit source]- 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 still be approved by Apple and fees be paid by the developer.[1][2]
- Apple: After the EU mandated USB-C as a charging port for all phones, Apple explored various ways to still require cable and accessory manufacturers to go through their costly Made for iPhone certification programmes and require consumers to still buy additional cables and accessories.[3]
- Other examples of malicious compliance are related to the willingness of companies to follow right to repair laws. Most notably of these companies are Apple, Samsung, and John Deere.[4]
References
[edit | edit source]- ↑ Mendes, Marcus (2025-05-27). "EU ruling: Apple's App Store still in violation of DMA, 30 days to comply". 9to5Mac. Archived from the original on 18 Dec 2025. Retrieved 2025-08-29.
- ↑ https://dev.to/1_king_0b1e1f8bfe6d1/how-ios-sideloading-actually-works-in-2025-dev-certs-altstore-and-the-eu-exception-1m2h (Archived)
- ↑ Roberts, Paul (2023-09-12). "Will Apple Use a Loophole in EU's USB-C Requirement?". iFixit. Archived from the original on 10 Oct 2025. Retrieved 2025-08-29.
- ↑ https://www.repair.org/blog/2024/1/26/malicious-compliance-with-right-to-repair-laws (Archived)