For game makers operating in China, new licensing requirements are on the horizon, especially for those that rely on iOS.
To that end, Apple said last week that it set a deadline of June 30 for app developers to comply with Chinese laws surrounding mobile video games.
The regulations, as reported by CNBC, mandate that mobile game makers who offer in-app purchases or charge for content through other means need to get licenses from the country’s censorship regulators — specifically the General Administration of Press and Publication of China.
As estimated by Newzoo, a market research firm, iOS will generate more than half of total mobile gaming revenues in China, at around $13 billion. But as CNBC has noted, the licensing rules could make it harder for smaller independent game makers to get their games published.
“The largest game developers will be able to partner with Chinese publishers such as Tencent, Netease and AppInChina in order to obtain a license and continue publishing their games in China,” Rich Bishop, CEO of AppInChina, told CNBC. “These partnerships typically involve a revenue share agreement, so this change in regulations will benefit the major Chinese publishers and reduce revenues even for game developers that are able to continue publishing in China.”
International Tax Policy
As U.S. Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin told the gathering, “You need to have an international tax system. You cannot have, in a global economy, different national tax systems that conflict with each other. That is bad for the individual countries, bad for the multinationals, and it just doesn’t work.”
France’s Bruno Le Maire, minister of economy and finance, said “The biggest companies of the world, without any physical presence, are making important profits in some states without paying the due level of taxes.”
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) is aiming to reach an agreement on taxation of global companies by the summer, with an endorsement by G20 by the end of the year.
CFPB Structure to Get Supreme Court Hearing
The case focuses on whether the creation of the bureau roughly a decade ago overstepped constitutional boundaries, with a structure in place that includes a single director serving a five-year term. That director can only be removed by the president for neglect of duty or malfeasance.
“I will be surprised if there aren’t five votes to invalidate the CFPB’s current structure,” WSJ quoted University of Illinois law-school dean Vikram Amar as stating.
As the WSJ reported, “it is unlikely the court would say the entire agency is invalid. The Trump administration argues the appropriate fix would be to make the director removable for any reason, a position similar to what Justice Kavanaugh embraced when he served on a federal appeals court,” according to weekend coverage.