What the Court Actually Decided
On July 8, 2026, the General Court of the European Union dismissed Apple's challenges in three joined cases — T-1079/23, T-1080/23, and T-214/24 — brought against the European Commission's September 5, 2023 decision designating the App Store and iOS as "core platform services" under the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Sitting as an Eighth Chamber of five judges, the court rejected Apple's central argument that its five App Store variants — for iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple Watch, and Apple TV — should be assessed separately, with only the iPhone version meeting the DMA's gatekeeper thresholds. The court held that "each of the App Stores was used for the same purpose, namely to intermediate between end users and business users in the distribution of applications and in-app digital content," and that differences between them reflected device characteristics rather than distinct services (Kluwer Competition Law Blog).
Apple also tried to use the case to attack Article 6(7) of the DMA — the provision requiring gatekeepers to open hardware and software features to competing devices and services — on fundamental-rights and proportionality grounds. The court declined to reach the merits, ruling instead that Article 6(7) "does not govern the conditions for designating an undertaking as a gatekeeper" but only defines obligations that attach after designation. Procedurally, that means Apple cannot pre-empt a specific interoperability request by challenging the designation decision itself; it must wait for the Commission to issue a concrete enforcement decision and challenge that instead (European Court of Justice press release).
One nuance got flattened in early coverage: iMessage was not ordered opened up. The Commission described iMessage as a "number-independent interpersonal communications service" during its investigation but never formally designated it as a gatekeeper service — it declined to do so in February 2024. Because no binding designation exists, the court found Apple's iMessage-related claims inadmissible for lack of a reviewable legal act, not because it ruled on the merits (EFF). iMessage remains outside the DMA's obligations unless and until the Commission designates it — something it can revisit at each periodic review.
Why Apple Is Fighting This
Article 6(7) forces Apple to let rival smartwatches, headphones, and accessories access the same iOS-level connectivity features — NFC, background app processes, notification handling, device pairing — that Apple's own AirPods and Apple Watch already enjoy natively. Apple's objection isn't abstract: it argues that opening low-level system hooks to third parties multiplies attack surface and forces it to choose between security and compliance on a rolling basis, since new interoperability requests can arrive continuously under the DMA's specification-request process.
The Case for the Mandate
The Commission's position deserves a fair hearing before dismissing it. Apple's control over App Store distribution and iOS-level APIs is not incidental market power — it is the power to decide which rivals exist at all in adjacent hardware markets. A competing smartwatch maker that cannot access the same background connectivity Apple grants its own devices isn't competing on merit; it's competing with one hand tied. The European Commission's Digital Markets Act portal frames this as the DMA's core theory: gatekeepers who control the platform get to write rules that entrench their own downstream products, and only a binding interoperability obligation forces a level playing field. That is a coherent competition-policy rationale, not merely a European taste for regulation over markets.
Where the Proportionality Concern Still Bites
The court's technology-neutral reasoning — that an App Store is an App Store regardless of device — is legally tidy but sidesteps the harder question Apple actually raised: whether specific interoperability mandates are proportionate to specific security risks, feature by feature. By ruling Apple's fundamental-rights challenge to Article 6(7) procedurally premature rather than resolving it, the General Court has deferred that harder question rather than answered it. Every future interoperability request will now have to be litigated as a standalone enforcement dispute, feature by feature, rather than settled once on principle — a slower, more expensive process for everyone, including the smaller developers the DMA is meant to help.
That procedural posture also has a chilling side effect already visible in Apple's EU product decisions: several iOS features have shipped later in the EU than elsewhere, or not at all, as Apple manages compliance uncertainty. A regime where obligations can only be tested in court one enforcement action at a time makes that hedging rational, not paranoid.
What Happens Next
Apple can still appeal to the Court of Justice of the EU, but only on points of law, within two months and ten days of notification (JURIST). The underlying interoperability obligations stay in force regardless. For the five other companies the Commission has designated as gatekeepers, the ruling sets a clear precedent: designation challenges will not be a vehicle for pre-emptively narrowing what a gatekeeper eventually has to open up. The proportionality fight Apple wanted to have — over which specific features must interoperate, and at what security cost — simply moves to whatever enforcement decision the Commission issues next.