(CN) – Apple’s walled garden will remain open after an EU court on 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.
General Court of the European Union discharged Apple’s challenges to three decisions of the European Commission under Digital Markets Lawwhich subjects the largest digital platforms to special obligations once they are designated as “carriers”. Apple was FIXED in 2023 for iOS, Safari and the App Store, a move that requires it to gradually open up parts of its ecosystem to rivals.
Apple had asked the judges to partially reverse that designation and erase the commission’s findings on iMessage, though Brussels ultimately decided not to designate the messaging service under the law.
For the regulators, the biggest victory came in the procedure. The judges said Apple was trying to challenge the obligations arising from the gatekeeper designation rather than the designation itself.
The act is INTEROPERABILITY the provision, the judges said, “does not regulate the conditions for designating an enterprise as gatekeeper, the assessment of which is the primary object of the designating decision, but merely defines the interoperability obligations to which that enterprise is subject only after 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 that the different devices do not change the essential role of stores to connect app developers with users.
“The commission was therefore correct when it considered that each of the App Stores was used for the same purpose and that they could be considered a single CPS (Core Platform Service),” the judges wrote.
Assimakis Komninos, a partner specializing in competition law at White & Case in Brussels, said the decision sets 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 implements those rules through a subsequent enforcement decision.
Pierre Larouche, chair of Law and Innovation at the Université de Montréal, said that leaves Apple’s larger legal arguments waiting for another day. Instead of deciding whether these objections had merit, the court found that Apple did not yet have standing to raise them.
“The refusal to entertain Apple’s arguments against DMA’s interoperability obligations means that those arguments will return to 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 related to iMessage.
“Thus, the contested finding in those decisions does not produce binding legal effects capable of producing a discernible change in Apple’s legal position,” they wrote.
Komninos said the outcome was not surprising because Apple was challenging the commission’s reasoning and not a ruling that changed its legal position, making the iMessage appeals “pretty clear” cases for dismissal.
However, Larouche questioned how closely the court approached the issue. While the ruling could help prevent a flood of DMA lawsuits, he said, it also delays 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 the reasoning could have ramifications far beyond Apple. “I think this approach is quite dangerous,” she said, warning that it could mean “none of the decisions that close market investigations under the DMA can be appealed to the courts.”
She also argued that 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 decision preserves one of the EU’s most ambitious efforts to curb the power of digital gatekeepers. Along with Apple, the commission has named Alphabet, Amazon, ByteDance, Meta, Microsoft and Booking under the act, asking them to loosen restrictions around app stores, browsers, search, advertising and interaction data to give users and developers more choice.
The law is already starting to bite. In April 2025, the commission imposed the first fines under the act, ordering Apple to pay 500 million euros (about $570 million) over App Store and Meta driving restrictions 200 million euros (about $230 million) on its advertising model. TikTok is separately contesting her appointment as a porter before the Court of Justice.
Agustín Reyna, director general of the European Consumer Organization, welcomed Wednesday’s ruling, saying it confirms that Apple cannot circumvent the law.
“It’s good news that the EU court confirmed that Apple is a gatekeeper,” Reyna said. “Anything less would have jeopardized the positive impact the Digital Marketplaces Act is having in creating more choice for consumers online.” He added that Apple’s efforts would be better spent complying with the DMA “completely and without delay”.
A spokesman for the European Commission said Brussels would study the decision before deciding on its next steps. “This is an important step for the implementation of the DMA and the pursuit of more contestability and fairness in digital markets,” the spokesperson said.
Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment. However, in a statement released to AFP and other media, the company said it “firmly believes that the DMA’s mandate goes beyond what is legal and proportionate, threatening to erode decades of privacy and security protections we have built and leaving our users vulnerable to new risks.” He added that he would “continue to advocate for the innovation and privacy that our European customers deserve.”
Wednesday’s decision is unlikely to be the company’s final word on the Digital Markets Act. Apple may still appeal to the Court of Justice, while separate disputes over how interoperability rules apply to its products are already working their way through EU courts.
Courthouse News reporter Eunseo Hong is based in the Netherlands.
Subscribe to our free newsletters
Our weekly newsletter Closing arguments provides the latest on ongoing trials, major litigation and decisions in courts around the US and the world, while monthly Under the lights feeds legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.
