The confrontation between Apple Inc. and the European Union has escalated to the bloc’s highest courts. Earlier this week, the tech giant launched a sweeping legal offensive against the Digital Markets Act (DMA), the EU’s landmark antitrust legislation designed to reshape the digital economy. At the General Court (EGC) in Luxembourg on Tuesday, Apple’s challenge became the most far-reaching test of the DMA to date, positioning the iPhone maker as the biggest renegade against Brussels’ attempts to curb the power of Silicon Valley.
This legal battle is more than a dispute over compliance rules; it is an ideological clash between Apple’s established business model of vertical integration and the EU’s vision of structural market reform. According to ECIPE.org, this reform is driven by concerns over entrenched corporate power and consumer lock-in, leading the Commission to pursue structural intervention rather than relying on the slower, case-by-case antitrust enforcement model.
Apple’s opening argument, delivered by lawyer Daniel Beard, argued forcefully that the DMA imposes hugely onerous and intrusive burdens that violate the company’s rights within the EU marketplace. Apple, designated a DMA gatekeeper for iOS, the App Store, and Safari in September 2023, contends that the law is disproportionately punitive and destructive to its highly integrated ecosystem.
According to many reports, the European Commission’s counter-argument, led by lawyer Paul-John Loewenthal, asserted that Apple’s absolute control over the iPhone allows it to generate supernormal profits in complimentary markets where competitors are severely handicapped. The Commission framed Apple’s ecosystem as a closed system — a walled garden — to which Only Apple has the keys. This control, the EU claimed, has successfully locked in more than a third of European smartphone users, necessitating the DMA’s structural intervention to promote contestable markets. The dispute is also politically charged, having previously drawn the ire of US President Donald Trump and plagued EU-US trade talks.
Apple’s comprehensive challenge attacks the DMA on three major fronts, using arguments that strategically cloak economic protectionism in the language of user protection and intellectual property rights.
First, the DMA requires Apple to ensure its services work seamlessly with rival hardware. Apple claims these interoperability obligations could imperil user privacy, security, and force the disclosure of Intellectual Property (IP). According to Courthouse News Service, Apple argued in court that forcing integration means exposing its software code and trade secrets, amounting to a deprivation of a key part of that right. Commission lawyers countered that lawmakers had already balanced competition and fundamental rights when drafting the DMA, and criticized Apple for failing to identify any concrete intellectual property that would actually be deprived by the rules. This argument is part of a sustained resistance, as Apple had already initiated procedural challenges against two specific decisions issued by the Commission to specify how the company must comply with these obligations.
Second, Apple targets the App Store itself. Apple contends that the hugely profitable App Store should escape the DMA rules entirely on the technicality that it does not constitute a singular service under the legal definition of the law. Should Apple prevail, many critical DMA requirements related to payments, anti-steering, and third-party distribution would become invalid for iOS, functionally dismantling the economic regulation of one of the company’s most lucrative platforms.
Finally, Apple’s argument hinges on the security exceptions outlined in Article 6(4) of the DMA, which allows gatekeepers to take strictly necessary and proportionate measures to protect the operating system’s integrity. Apple contends that the DMA’s mandate to allow alternative app distribution creates a riskier, less intuitive App Experience for users in the EU. The company warns that this openness increases exposure to scams and malware.
By positioning the DMA’s mandates as a security threat, Apple argues that forcing iOS to look more like Android ultimately reduces consumer choice. The company has also cited the massive engineering effort required for compliance as the reason for delaying new, complex features — such as Live Translation with Apple Intelligence — for EU users.
The judicial challenge at the EGC is set against the backdrop of significant non-compliance rulings already issued by the Commission. On April 23, 2025, the Commission imposed its first major fine under the DMA, hitting Apple with a staggering €500 million penalty for violating anti-steering rules. This violation stemmed from Apple’s failure to sufficiently allow app developers to inform consumers about alternative, often cheaper, purchase options outside the App Store. The Commission found that Apple failed to demonstrate that these restrictions were objectively necessary and proportionate, preventing developers from fully benefiting from alternative distribution channels.
Simultaneous to the legal challenge, Apple has implemented compliance mechanisms that critics argue are designed to technically comply with the law while economically evading its spirit. These mechanisms prompted preliminary findings of non-compliance from the Commission, acting as significant deterrents for developers. Key economic barriers include the Core Technology Fee (CTF). This is a charge of €0.50 per install annually over one million installs, applicable only to apps earning over €10 million. Critics argue this acts as a prohibitive monetary ceiling that discourages growth. Another barrier is the Stand-By Letter of Credit (SBLC). A €1,000,000 letter of credit is required for alternative marketplace operators, imposing recurring collateral requirements that many Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) struggle to meet, effectively reinforcing the central App Store’s dominance.
Here’s the thing, folks: The outcome of this case holds immense significance for the global regulatory environment. The procedural reality dictates that while Apple must implement DMA changes immediately, the legal process can take months or years. Apple has warned that implementing these changes before a final court ruling could cause irreversible harm to users. This protracted legal uncertainty and high costs create a potent chilling effect, likely resulting in a two-tiered world where European users experience distinct versions of services.
With that… The Free Software Foundation Europe has intervened in the case, calling it a pivotal moment for Software Freedom, hoping to gain less restrictive access barriers and effective interoperability. The massive stakes are underscored by the penalties for non-compliance, which can reach up to 10% of a company’s global annual revenue. The success or failure of the DMA in this landmark confrontation will profoundly influence the EU’s confidence in expanding its regulatory scope into other sectors.
If you do not work directly with them, you should still root for them to win!