EU General Court Rejects Apple's Challenge to Gatekeeper Designation Under DMA

13.07.2026

On July 8 the General Court of the European Union in Luxembourg rejected all of Apple's actions against the decision designating the App Store and iOS as a gatekeeper under the Digital Markets Act. The ruling covers cases T-1079/23, T-1080/23 and T-214/24, Apple and Apple Distribution International v Commission.

How the case developed

Apple filed suit in 2024 after the European Commission designated five App Store services, running on iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple TV and Apple Watch, as a single core platform service within the meaning of the DMA. Apple argued for separate assessment of the stores given the differences between devices. The Commission's decision also covered Apple's interoperability obligations with third party hardware, including headphones and smartwatches, and a separate investigation into iMessage.

This ruling is not the only open front for Apple under the DMA. In April 2025 the Commission fined Apple 500 million euros for restricting developers' ability to direct users to payment options outside the App Store, while fining Meta 200 million euros for its "consent or pay" model. Apple has appealed that fine separately in case T-438/25, which remains pending before the General Court. The dispute also touches on the so called Core Technology Fee, a charge on publishers for each app install beyond a certain threshold, which the Commission views as a possible way to circumvent the requirement to allow free steering to third party payment services rather than a way to comply with it.

The substance of the claims

Apple challenged the gatekeeper designation of the App Store and iOS, arguing that the five stores serve different markets and should not be treated as a single core platform service. Separately, Apple challenged the obligation to ensure interoperability of its devices with competitors' hardware, citing security risks. Apple also challenged the Commission's investigation into iMessage, seeking its termination.

Positions of the parties

The Court held that the stores, regardless of device, perform the same function: connecting app developers with end users for software distribution, and therefore form a single core platform service. The Court confirmed that the interoperability obligation with competitors' hardware is lawful and grounded in the DMA. On the iMessage claim, the Court found it inadmissible, since the Commission never actually included iMessage in the list of core platform services, and the contested classification by itself produces no binding legal effects.

Apple stated that it considers the DMA mandate to exceed the limits of legitimate and proportionate regulation, and intends to keep defending innovation and the privacy of its European users. Apple retains the right to appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union, the EU's highest instance.

What this means for business

The ruling confirms that gatekeeper status under the DMA is assessed by functional purpose and market role, not by device category or technical architecture. Companies operating multi-device ecosystems should account for the fact that regulators and courts will group related services into a single core platform service if they perform one function for users and business customers, regardless of formal product separation.

The ruling also confirms that interoperability obligations toward third party hardware and software remain in force even where a gatekeeper invokes security or privacy considerations, unless a separate and substantiated exemption has been obtained.

The decision comes roughly a week after the EU Court confirmed the 4.1 billion euro fine against Google in the Android case. It also fits the General Court's broader pattern on gatekeeper status disputes: in July 2024 the Court rejected ByteDance's challenge, which the company is still appealing to the EU Court, and in June 2026 the Court issued a mixed ruling in the Meta case, annulling the gatekeeper designation for Marketplace while upholding it for Messenger. The overall picture is that EU courts largely support the Commission's structural interpretation of the DMA, though not unconditionally, while gatekeepers' proportionality and security arguments have so far had no success.

REVERA recommendations

 

• 1/ Analyze how products within a digital ecosystem are segmented for DMA purposes, and assess whether functionally similar services across different devices or platforms could be grouped into a single core platform service.

 

• 2/ Document in advance the grounds for security and privacy measures behind any restrictions on interoperability with third party hardware or software, since general declaratory objections are unlikely to be accepted by EU courts.

 

• 3/ Closely monitor the scope of any ongoing Commission investigation, since services not yet formally designated remain outside DMA obligations, allowing the extent of applicable regulation to be challenged at an early stage rather than after a decision is issued.

 

• 4/ Review fee structures, such as per install or per transaction charges levied on developers in connection with steering users to third party payment services or distribution through alternative stores, since the Commission treats such fees as a possible way to circumvent mandated measures rather than as an independent commercial term.

 

• 5/ Track related proceedings, including the Google Android case, the Meta and ByteDance DMA disputes, and Apple's pending appeal against the 500 million euro fine for restricting steering to third party payment services, since the General Court is building a consistent body of practice on gatekeeper status and the structure of mandated measures that will shape further enforcement.

REVERA's Arbitration & IT Disputes practice is ready to assess your company's exposure under the Digital Markets Act and review the structure, licensing and regulatory compliance of your app distribution agreements.