EU court rules clearly against Apple: very much a gatekeeper – arguments rejected | News

Achieving a dominant position or even a monopoly is not in itself illegal. However, the exploitation of this special position does fall under antitrust law – and once a certain level of influence has been reached, corresponding companies have to act much more cautiously when dealing with competitors. Apple, which was on the verge of bankruptcy 30 years ago, has long since become such a company that, according to global competition authorities, is very careful to keep competition down to protect its own sales and to restrict customers’ choices. In the EU, the relevant key term is “gatekeeper” – if you generate more than 7.5 billion euros in sales, are worth more than 75 billion euros, supply at least 45 million users per month or supply 10,000 business customers, this is how the DMA rules apply.

Court gives Apple a severe defeat
Apple has now gone to the European Union Court to present itself as a much smaller provider to which the DMA should not apply. One argument was that there was no such thing as “the App Store”; instead, a multitude of small, less important platforms were operated – namely stores for macOS, iOS, iPadOS, watchOS and visionOS. The court did not follow the logic in the recent judgment and confirmed the Commission’s view that all of these stores fulfill the same purpose with the same stakeholders. This means that the classification as a gatekeeper remains, meaning that the DMA regulations on freedom of choice and interoperability apply unchanged. Alternative app stores, browser engines, NFC, standard apps and, in the future, AI assistants are affected.

Apple also defended itself in court against the possible classification of iMessage. This is quite strange, because as the court stated, there was no decision at all that established iMessage as a gatekeeper service. Where there is no requirement, none can be challenged, according to the rationale given for the rejection. The repeated claim that Apple acts exclusively to protect users and only has data protection and security in mind was once again not heard.

So DMA applies – it’s now up to Apple to behave accordingly
The verdict is a clear defeat for Apple. If they had been successful, DMA requirements would have had to be weakened at least in part. However, it has now been confirmed by the highest authorities that the legal regulations have a stable foundation and can therefore be enforced unchanged. That’s exactly what the proceedings were about – and not about the question of whether Apple’s previous behavior was legal. The concrete implementation of the regulations remains Apple’s own construction site. The court did not address whether there was still questionable business behavior or whether the punishment imposed by the EU against Apple was appropriate.