Malicious Compliance

Revision as of 18:51, 30 August 2025 by 2a02:810d:548d:e500:2c4b:3cef:84c6:48ff (talk) (Add missing heading to references section)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

⚠️ A deletion request has been made for this article

There has been a deletion request for this page for the following reason:

Concept is vague and does not directly tie in with consumer rights.


This request will be reviewed and acted upon by the wiki moderation team within one week of the template being added.

To appeal this deletion request, please make an entry at the Moderator's noticeboard.

Do not delete this page before removing all references to it:


Article Status Notice: This Article is a stub


This article is underdeveloped, and needs additional work to meet the wiki's Content Guidelines and be in line with our Mission Statement for comprehensive coverage of consumer protection issues. Learn more ▼

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

  • 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]
  • 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.[2]

References edit

  1. Mendes, Marcus (2025-05-27). "EU ruling: Apple's App Store still in violation of DMA, 30 days to comply". 9to5Mac. Retrieved 2025-08-29.
  2. Roberts, Paul (2023-09-12). "Will Apple Use a Loophole in EU's USB-C Requirement?". iFixit. Retrieved 2025-08-29.