Starting December, IPhones In Japan Forced To Provide Browsers Apart From Safari, Apple Must Obey

Apple is forced to provide browsers other than Safari on iPhone (photo; x @TK11050830)

Jakarta Japan through the Fair Trade Commission (JFTC) will enforce new rules that force Apple to allow the use of third-party browsers on the iPhone starting December 2025. This policy is part of a new anti-monopoly regulation that also requires Apple to open access to third-party app stores.

This rule is contained in the Mobile Software Competition Act update which was finalized in July 2025. One of the most important points is the abolition of Apple's policies which so far requires all browsers on iOS to use Safari's WebKit machines.

Based on a guide translated by Open Web Advocacy, Apple was given a deadline of December 18, 2025 to remove restrictions that hinder or hinder the use of alternative browser machines on iOS.

With the enactment of this rule, iPhone users in Japan have the potential to enjoy a really different browser choice from Safari starting in early 2026. In addition, regulation also requires Apple to open support for alternative payment methods and provide wider access to hardware features such as Face ID and Touch ID for third-party developers.

Japan's approach is different from the European Union, which despite allowing the use of third-party browser engines theoretically, its implementation has been slow due to complex additional requirements. Japan targets a simpler and more practical adoption process for developers.

Previously, in May 2025, the JFTC requested public input regarding a draft regulation targeting major technology companies such as Apple and Google. Just weeks after the consultation period ended, to be precise July 29, 2025, the JFTC announced a regulatory guide update under the Mobile Software Competition Act.

Apple opposes this policy on the grounds that it can threaten user privacy and security. The company also objected to providing technologies such as Face ID and Touch ID to third parties without compensation, which it said would provide unfair benefits for competing services.