Search Articles
(CN) — Apple’s walled garden will remain pried open after an EU court Wednesday rejected the iPhone maker’s challenge to its gatekeeper designation, preserving a cornerstone of the European Union’s effort to rein in Big Tech.
The General Court of the European Union dismissed Apple’s challenges to three European Commission decisions under the Digital Markets Act, which subjects the largest digital platforms to special obligations once they are designated as “gatekeepers.” Apple was designated in 2023 for iOS, Safari and the App Store, a move that requires it to gradually open parts of its ecosystem to rivals.
Apple had asked judges to partly annul that designation and erase the commission’s findings on iMessage, even though Brussels ultimately decided not to designate the messaging service under the law.
For regulators, the biggest win came on procedure. Judges said Apple was trying to contest obligations that follow from its gatekeeper designation rather than the designation itself.
The act’s interoperability provision, the judges said, “does not govern the conditions for designating an undertaking as a gatekeeper, the assessment of which is the main subject of the designation decision, but merely defines the interoperability obligations to which that undertaking is subject only once such designation has occurred.”
Apple also lost its bid to treat the App Stores for iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch and Apple TV as separate services. The court said the different devices do not change the stores’ essential role of connecting app developers with users.
“The commission was therefore correct in considering that each of the App Stores was used for the same purpose and that they could therefore be regarded as a single CPS (Core Platform Service)”, the judges wrote.
Assimakis Komninos, a partner specializing in competition law at White & Case in Brussels, said the judgment establishes a clear sequence for future Digital Markets Act litigation.
“It’s premature,” he said, summing up the court’s message. Companies cannot challenge the DMA’s interoperability obligations until the European Commission actually applies those rules through a later enforcement decision.
Pierre Larouche, chair of Law and Innovation at Université de Montréal, said that leaves Apple’s biggest legal arguments waiting for another day. Rather than deciding whether those objections had merit, the court found Apple was not yet entitled to raise them.
“The refusal to entertain Apple’s arguments against the DMA’s interoperability obligations means that these arguments will come back in another case,” Larouche said.
The judges applied the same procedural logic to iMessage. Although the commission investigated whether Apple’s messaging service should be designated under the DMA, it ultimately declined to do so, meaning Apple faced no new legal obligations tied to iMessage.
“Thus, the contested finding in those decisions does not produce binding legal effects capable of bringing about a distinct change in Apple’s legal position,” they wrote.
Komninos said that outcome was hardly surprising because Apple was objecting to the commission’s reasoning rather than a decision that changed its legal position, making the iMessage appeals “pretty clear” cases for dismissal.
Larouche, however, questioned how narrowly the court approached that issue. While the ruling may help prevent a flood of DMA lawsuits, he said, it also postpones answers to important legal questions by limiting when companies can challenge the commission’s reasoning.
Alba Ribera Martínez, an assistant professor in law and technology at VU Amsterdam, said that reasoning could have consequences well beyond Apple. “I think this approach is quite dangerous,” she said, warning it could mean “none of the decisions closing market investigations under the DMA could be appealed before the courts.”
She also argued the judges paid too little attention to whether the commission’s classification of iMessage could still shape Apple’s position under other areas of EU telecommunications law, even without triggering obligations under the DMA.
The ruling preserves one of the EU’s most ambitious efforts to curb the power of digital gatekeepers. Alongside Apple, the commission has designated Alphabet, Amazon, ByteDance, Meta, Microsoft and Booking under the act, requiring them to loosen restrictions around app stores, browsers, search, advertising data and interoperability to give users and developers more choice.
The law has already begun to bite. In April 2025, the commission imposed its first fines under the act, ordering Apple to pay 500 million euros (about $570 million) over App Store steering restrictions and Meta 200 million euros (about $230 million) over its advertising model. TikTok is separately challenging its gatekeeper designation before the Court of Justice.
Agustín Reyna, director general of the European Consumer Organisation, welcomed Wednesday’s judgment, saying it confirms Apple cannot sidestep the law.
“It is good news that the EU court confirmed that Apple is a gatekeeper,” Reyna said. “Anything less would have jeopardized the positive impact the Digital Markets Act is having in creating more choice for consumers online.” He added that Apple’s efforts would be better spent complying with the DMA “in full and without delay.”
A European Commission spokesperson said Brussels would study the judgment before deciding on its next steps. “This is an important step for the enforcement of the DMA and for the pursuit of more contestability and fairness in digital markets,” the spokesperson said.
Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment. In a statement distributed to AFP and other media outlets, however, the company said it “firmly believe[s] the DMA’s mandate goes beyond what is lawful and proportionate, threatening to erode decades of privacy and security protections we’ve built and leaving our users vulnerable to new risks.” It added that it would “continue advocating for the innovation and privacy our European customers deserve.”
Wednesday’s ruling is unlikely to be the company’s last word on the Digital Markets Act. Apple can still appeal to the Court of Justice, while separate disputes over how the interoperability rules apply to its products are already working their way through the EU courts.
Courthouse News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
