BANGKOK, THAILAND – App-store payment rules were increasingly pushing up the cost of digital dating in Thailand and squeezing local platforms’ revenues.
Expats see dating subscriptions quietly rise
As the sun set over Bangkok’s skyline, an expatriate named Mark (name changed) scrolled through profiles on the popular Thai dating site ThaiFriendly from his condo. The platform had long allowed him to pay for a premium subscription directly on its website by credit card, bypassing big tech commission fees. When he tried to renew his monthly plan via the mobile app, the payment flow shifted and forced him toward Apple or Google’s in-app purchase systems, while the still-cheaper web option became invisible inside the app.
For many users the change appeared to be a minor technical update, but it signalled a global multi‑billion‑dollar dispute with almost certain price increases for customers.
“I pay more, and the platform gets less. This situation is only good for Apple and Google.”
said Mark, a mid‑40s expat.
Mandatory commissions of 15 to 30 percent
For more than a decade, a fundamental conflict had simmered between app developers and the two giants controlling access to the mobile market: Apple and Google. Both companies charged a mandatory commission, widely known as the “App‑Store‑Tax”, for processing digital in‑app payments, typically ranging between 15% and 30% of revenue. The often‑cited 30% fee was the standard for many large, high‑turnover companies such as Netflix, Spotify and, in all likelihood, ThaiFriendly, but it did not apply universally.
A reduced 15% rate applied in two main situations: small businesses with annual app‑store revenue under 1 million US dollars under Apple’s and Google’s small business programmes, and long‑term subscriptions on Apple’s platforms after more than one year. For a subscription‑driven service like ThaiFriendly, however, any forced in‑app payment significantly cut margins, even when commissions eventually dropped to 15%.
Extra 7 percent VAT deepens the price gap
Another overlooked factor was Thailand’s value‑added tax. Since 2021, foreign digital services used in the country had been subject to 7% VAT, further complicating the economics of in‑app purchases. When users paid via Apple or Google, the tech company added VAT on top of the gross price and remitted it, without reducing its commission, and deducted the 30% fee before passing the remainder to the app developer.
An example calculation for a net subscription price of 1,000 baht showed how costs diverged between browser and in‑app payments. To secure the same 1,000 baht net for ThaiFriendly, a direct web payment led to a gross customer price of 1,070 baht including VAT, while an in‑app transaction required roughly 1,528 baht once the 30% commission and 7% VAT were factored in, leaving users paying over 40% more.
Anti‑steering rules hide cheaper payment options
Public debate often assumed that web payments could be technically blocked, but this was not the case; users could still open a mobile browser and pay on the website. The real constraint lay in app‑store anti‑steering rules, which banned developers from highlighting these cheaper alternatives inside native apps. Store policies explicitly prohibited links, buttons or even text pointing to lower‑priced web payments, forcing platforms like ThaiFriendly to remove earlier prompts that had guided customers to their sites.
Mark’s frustration stemmed from no longer seeing cheaper rates within the app and having to actively switch to the browser himself. Non‑compliance with these rules risked temporary suspension or full removal from the app stores, a potentially existential threat for services heavily reliant on new sign‑ups through mobile channels.
Thailand lags global moves to curb mobile duopoly
While the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) set an international precedent by compelling alternative payment routes, Thailand remained in a wait‑and‑see phase. The country had broad digital consumer‑protection rules overseen by the ETDA, but no specific legislation obliged Apple or Google to allow competing payment systems inside apps or to permit sideloading outside their stores. This distinguished Thailand from markets such as South Korea, the Netherlands and EU member states.
Regulators in Bangkok closely watched international court cases, including proceedings involving Epic Games against Google, yet binding reforms to loosen the mobile duopoly had not materialised. In this legal vacuum, app‑store operators retained wide discretion to enforce anti‑steering provisions on services operating in Thailand.
Higher barriers for start‑ups and sensitive content
The push toward in‑app payments had broader economic consequences beyond simple commission deductions. For Thai start‑ups and smaller apps, the combined burden of app‑store fees and VAT made it harder to offer competitive prices and to challenge global platforms with deeper capital reserves that could absorb these costs more easily. This dynamic raised entry barriers across the local digital ecosystem.
Dating platforms and other culturally sensitive services also came under stricter content and moderation rules when fully dependent on app‑store systems. This increased the risk of automated takedowns or temporary suspensions for content that might be misinterpreted, further degrading user experience. The forced shift in payments was therefore not just a problem for Mark and ThaiFriendly, but a structural issue weighing on Thai consumers and developers throughout the country’s digital economy.