While I agree that Dunn & Bradstreet (the issuers of the DUNS number) is a "scam"[1], there are several errors in this article.

The first is, that Apple was getting extreme heat for how long it was taking for them to verify companies. There were many posts from Rogue amoeba, and many linkbait articles complaining about the "App store lottery" and how Apple wouldn't let many people play.

Apple switching to DUNS is clearly an attempt to make this process go more smoothly for everyone.

More importantly, though, because of the potential for liability that Apple has in selling items thru the App Store on behalf of developers, Apple needs to assure, via some "reasonable" process, that they are dealing with real entities.

A business isa fictitious entity, almost by definition, and so to protect itself from knowingly or negligently selling copyrighted material it's not authorized to, it has to authenticate that the businesses it is entering into contracts with are legitimate businesses. IF it does that, then putting warez on the appstore becomes the liability of the business, not apple.

Apple is a huge target and has been harassed by frivolous and obnoxious lawsuits seemingly forever... so it is not unreasonable for them to ensure that their contracts with App developers are legitimate because they are with legitimate entities.

Thirdly, DUNS numbers are not some obscure number used only when doing business with the government.

They are the primary credit reporting agency for businesses in the USA. Most businesses (or at least many) get a DUNS number just in the course of doing business and don't ever have to apply. For instance D&B has a feed of incorporation info from many state's secretaries of state, and as a matter of course, issues DUNS numbers to businesses after they incorporate.

Building credit for a business, because of limited liability laws, is more difficult than individual credit. The fees DUNS charges are usually for their "credit builder" programs, and given the value of the service to a business that needs credit (think your mom & pop flower shop, etc.) they are probably a good deal.

This doesn't exclude shady sales practices or make them right. There's certainly a great deal of reform that the whole credit reporting agency business should go thru...mostly removing government protections of liability for false information, etc.

Consider, though, that it is rather easy in the US to form a business and to dissolve one. Combine that with credit and you risk scammers forming businesses, running up debt and then shutting them down in bankruptcy and making off with the loot.

So, unfortunately, some of the obnoxiousness of D&B comes from their desire to prevent this... but at the same time, their practices are pretty incompetently done (as is the case with all Credit Reporting Agencies) and so what may seem like a scam is often really just poorly implemented policies, with a reasonable motive.

The choice here for Apple is either use DUNS, a third party whom they can effectively offload compliance liability to

[1] As currently set up by the US government, really. The US government passed laws that allow credit reporting agencies to violate privacy in all kinds of ways. This is why DUNS and the other CRAs are such problems for consumers in a huge variety of ways. They are "regulated" such that they are very difficult to hold accountable. The only upside- you get a single free copy of the info they are holding on you, but only once a year. (Which is weak sauce, to say the least.)