The EU's General Court rejects Apple's 'gatekeeper' challenge under the Digital Markets Act, locking in Apple's obligation to keep all five app stores open to rivals while two related cases remain pending.
Apple lost its challenge to the EU's "gatekeeper" label on Wednesday, as the EU's General Court confirmed the company's status under the Digital Markets Act and rejected Apple's central argument that the law's interoperability requirements overstep legal and security bounds. A European Court of Justice press release dated July 8 shows the court dismissed Apple's bid to undo the European Commission's designation, leaving in place the obligations that force Apple to keep rival app stores and services compatible with its platforms.
The Digital Markets Act, the EU's 2022 competition rulebook for the largest online platforms, brands certain companies as "gatekeepers" and obliges them to open their core services to rivals. The Commission has previously designated Apple as a gatekeeper under the law, concluding that all five of its app stores (iOS, macOS, watchOS, iPadOS, and tvOS) function as a single core platform service. The General Court agreed on Wednesday, backing the Commission's view that those five stores are part of one product and that interoperability duties therefore apply across all of them.
Apple's legal fight centered on proportionality and security. The company argued that forcing iPhones to interoperate with third-party smartwatches, earbuds, and other connected hardware exposed users to privacy and safety risks. That argument failed. The court treated Apple's five stores as one core service and upheld the open-access obligation, leaving rival app marketplaces in Europe with a court-confirmed right to interoperate that they did not have a day earlier. Apple cannot block rival app marketplaces from offering iOS apps, cannot favor its own payment system over alternatives, and cannot give its own apps privileged placement over third-party alternatives inside the App Store.
A company spokesperson told Engadget that Apple "firmly believe[s] the DMA's mandate goes beyond what is lawful and proportionate, threatening to erode decades of privacy and security protections," and that the company would "continue advocating for the innovation and privacy our European customers deserve." The statement leaves Apple's privacy-versus-competition argument in play as the company weighs an appeal.
In a separate ruling on the same day, the General Court threw out as "inadmissible" Apple's challenge to a Commission decision that had largely spared iMessage from DMA coverage. France 24 reported that the case was rejected on procedural grounds, leaving iMessage outside the DMA's strictest obligations for now. iMessage stays uncovered, while the gatekeeper finding against the company stands.
The court loss does not close Apple's file in Europe. Two additional Apple cases remain pending in EU courts: a challenge to the 2025 Commission decision forcing iOS open to third-party developers, and a separate pending matter. The company has not yet confirmed whether it will appeal Wednesday's gatekeeper ruling, leaving the practical timetable for compliance unchanged but the final legal chapter unwritten. Apple has previously blamed the DMA for the indefinite delay of its Siri AI assistant launch in the EU, an argument it is likely to lean on harder if the appeal goes forward.
A recent phone call between Apple CEO Tim Cook and European technology chief Henna Virkkunen, which the European Commission described as "constructive", shows that the courtroom fight is running in parallel with quiet diplomacy. Civil-society groups are also still pushing. The Free Software Foundation Europe has intervened in related Apple proceedings to back the DMA's interoperability mandate, putting developer and consumer voices on the record as the next two cases move toward judgment.
For European developers, the ruling removes a major legal cloud over distributing apps outside the App Store. For Apple, it locks in the DMA's operating reality while preserving the right to argue that the rules themselves should change. The next test of that argument comes when the Commission moves on the still-pending iOS developer-access case.