Apple gatekeeper judgment: when a DMA obligation can be challenged
In short: the Apple gatekeeper judgment of 8 July 2026 dismissed all three of Apple’s actions against its Digital Markets Act designation. The General Court held that a gatekeeper cannot challenge Article 6(7) in an action against its designation decision, because designation only starts a six-month clock; the duty comes from Article 3(10) read with Article 6(1).
A company designated as a gatekeeper under the Digital Markets Act has six months to comply with a list of obligations the Regulation sets for it and which it cannot negotiate. On 8 July 2026 the General Court held that it cannot contest the lawfulness of one of those obligations by challenging its designation either. The obligations apply automatically six months after designation, and the moment to challenge comes later, when the Commission adopts a decision specifying or enforcing an obligation against the gatekeeper. That is a rule about timing, and it governs every designated gatekeeper.
What Apple contested, and under which provisions
Apple brought three actions under Article 263 TFEU, which the General Court joined and decided together in Cases T-1079/23, T-1080/23 and T-214/24 (ECLI:EU:T:2026:451). It sought partial annulment of the designation decision of 5 September 2023, C(2023) 6100 final, which listed the App Store, iOS and Safari, and annulment of the two decisions opening and closing the market investigation into iMessage, C(2023) 6077 final of the same date and Commission Implementing Decision C(2024) 785 final of 12 February 2024.
Apple notified the European Commission on 3 July 2023 that it met the thresholds in Article 3(2) of the Digital Markets Act for the iOS App Store, iOS, Safari and iMessage, while arguing that iMessage was not a number-independent interpersonal communications service. That term comes into the Digital Markets Act from Article 2(7) of the European Electronic Communications Code. The Commission designated the first three services and opened a market investigation into iMessage under Article 17(3), which it closed without designating iMessage while keeping the classification in its reasons. Under Article 3(10) the obligations in Articles 5, 6 and 7 applied to Apple from 7 March 2024, six months after notification of the designation decision.
What the Apple gatekeeper judgment did not decide
Apple asked the General Court to declare Article 6(7) of the Digital Markets Act inapplicable under Article 277 TFEU, on the ground that the interoperability obligation it contains does not respect proportionality or the right to property. The Court did not decide that question. It held the plea inadmissible at paragraph 47 and went no further.
A party may plead the illegality of a measure of general application only where that measure forms the legal basis of the contested decision or has a direct legal connection with it (paragraphs 29 to 31). Article 3 is the legal basis of the designation decision, and Article 6(7) is not (paragraphs 34 to 35). Article 6(7) does not appear in the statement of reasons, and the recitals dealing with iOS say nothing about it (paragraphs 37 to 38). Apple’s duty to comply with Article 6(7) follows from Article 3(10) read with Article 6(1), not from the designation decision itself (paragraph 39). The Court accepted that a gatekeeper must be designated before Article 6(7) can apply to it, but held at paragraphs 40 and 41 that this timing does not make the designation decision an implementing measure of Article 6(7). Article 6(7) tells a designated gatekeeper what it must do; the designation decision does not.
On the right to an effective remedy in Article 47 of the Charter, the Court held that the right of access to a court permits proportionate restrictions (paragraph 52) and then named the route that remains open. Under Article 8(2) of the Digital Markets Act the Commission may adopt an implementing act specifying the measures a gatekeeper must take to comply with Article 6(7), and a gatekeeper may plead the illegality of Article 6(7) in an action against that act (paragraph 61). Under Article 8(3) a gatekeeper may ask the Commission to open that process on measures it intends to implement or has implemented, and the Court noted at paragraph 59 that a decision at the end of it does not necessarily involve any finding of infringement. Article 8(3) also gives the Commission a discretion whether to engage, so the route is available to a gatekeeper rather than guaranteed to it. The Commission has already used it against Apple: on 19 March 2025 it adopted two implementing decisions under Article 8(2) specifying how Apple must comply with Article 6(7), one of them on iOS features for connected physical devices. It has used the same power against Google, analysed in the analysis of the Google specification decisions.
One App Store, and a classification with no legal effect
The General Court upheld the Commission’s treatment of five separate application stores, on iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Mac and Apple TV, as a single core platform service. Read together, Articles 2(2), 2(5) and 2(14) of the Digital Markets Act define a software application store without reference to the device on which the store operates or the operating system under which its applications execute (paragraph 79). Recital 14 states that the definition of a core platform service must be technology neutral, and the Court applied that principle: classification does not vary with the technical choices a gatekeeper makes (paragraph 80). Apple’s evidence about how each store was used and displayed went to the devices rather than to the purpose for which end users and business users used the stores (paragraph 87). A gatekeeper cannot put a new device outside an existing designation by giving it its own store.
The Court rejected the iMessage limb on admissibility rather than substance. Only the operative part of a decision produces legal effects, and assessments in the recitals are reviewable only where they are the essential basis of that operative part (paragraph 111). The recitals classifying iMessage as a number-independent interpersonal communications service are not (paragraph 113). No obligation in Articles 5, 6 or 7 applies to a service unless the Commission has listed that service in the operative part of a designation decision as an important gateway, and iMessage is not listed (paragraphs 116 to 117). Article 4(2) requires a fresh assessment on any review, so the classification is not settled for the future either (paragraphs 119 to 120). Article 1(4), read with recital 64, preserves the powers of national regulatory authorities under Article 61 of the European Electronic Communications Code, and those authorities are not bound by a classification the Commission makes for Digital Markets Act purposes (paragraphs 126 to 128). The same reasoning disposed of the two market investigation decisions, which the Court dismissed as inadmissible (paragraphs 145 to 148).
Where the same argument is made in the UK
The Competition and Markets Authority designated Apple as having strategic market status in its mobile platform on 22 October 2025, under Part 1 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024. A designated undertaking in the UK has no equivalent of Article 277 TFEU, because a UK court cannot disapply an Act of Parliament for want of proportionality. Under section 19(5) the CMA may instead impose a conduct requirement only where it considers that doing so would be proportionate for the fair dealing objective, the open choices objective or the trust and transparency objective. Under section 103 a person with sufficient interest may apply to the Competition Appeal Tribunal for review of any decision the CMA makes in connection with its digital markets functions, and the Tribunal applies judicial review principles.
A designated firm therefore makes the proportionality argument at a different point in each regime: in the EU against the Regulation, once the Commission has specified or enforced an obligation, and in the UK against the CMA’s own decision, as soon as the requirement is imposed. The CMA has not yet imposed a conduct requirement on Apple in the steering workstream. It consulted on a proposed steering conduct requirement on 30 June 2026 and published the responses on 14 August 2026, a proposal set out in the analysis of the CMA steering conduct requirements. The scope of support on regulator investigations and enforcement is on the investigations and enforcement support page.
| Stage | EU: Digital Markets Act | UK: DMCC Act 2024 |
|---|---|---|
| How obligations attach | Commission designates under Article 3; the obligations in Articles 5, 6 and 7 apply six months later under Article 3(10) | CMA designates an undertaking with strategic market status; the CMA then imposes conduct requirements by notice under section 19(1) |
| Contesting the rule at designation | Not available. Article 6(7) has no direct legal connection with the designation decision (paragraph 47) | Not available. The Tribunal reviews decisions of the CMA, not the Act |
| Where proportionality is argued | Against a later Commission decision specifying or enforcing the obligation, by plea of illegality under Article 277 TFEU (paragraphs 58 to 61) | Against the conduct requirement itself, which the CMA may impose only where it considers it proportionate (section 19(5)) |
| Who decides | The General Court, with an appeal to the Court of Justice on points of law | The Competition Appeal Tribunal, applying judicial review principles (section 103(4)) |
| Effect of bringing a challenge | Apple’s obligations applied from 7 March 2024 and continued throughout the proceedings | An application does not suspend the decision unless the Tribunal directs otherwise (section 103(3)) |
Viewpoint
The Court left the interoperability obligation open to challenge; it held only that Apple had brought its challenge against the wrong act. On 30 May 2025 it brought Case T-354/25, asking the Court to declare Article 6(7) inapplicable under Article 277 TFEU and to annul the specification decision the Commission had adopted against it on 19 March 2025. Its first plea is that Article 6(7) does not respect the Charter or the principle of proportionality, which is the argument the July 2026 judgment declined to hear. That case is pending. A gatekeeper wanting to test an Article 6 obligation therefore has a route that works, subject to the discretion Article 8(3) leaves with the Commission over whether to open the process at all.
The Commission’s classification of a service as a number-independent interpersonal communications service does not bind a national regulatory authority applying the European Electronic Communications Code, whether the provider is Apple or any other messaging operator. Paragraphs 126 to 128 say so directly, and Article 1(4) of the Digital Markets Act is the provision they rest on.
The Apple gatekeeper judgment is not final. Apple may appeal to the Court of Justice on points of law within two months and ten days of notification, and as at 24 August 2026 no appeal has been recorded; the designation stands in the meantime. Further analysis of the digital markets regimes in the UK and the EU is on the digital regulation page.
Frequently asked questions
Did the General Court decide whether the DMA interoperability obligation is proportionate?
No. The Court held Apple’s plea of illegality against Article 6(7) inadmissible at paragraph 47 and did not examine the merits. Article 6(7) is not the legal basis of the designation decision and has no direct legal connection with it, so Article 277 TFEU was not available to Apple in an action against that decision.
When can a gatekeeper challenge a Digital Markets Act obligation?
In an action against a later Commission decision implementing the obligation, which the Court identified at paragraph 58 as a decision under Articles 8, 13, 24, 29, 30 or 31. The obligation itself applies automatically six months after designation, under Article 3(10). Under Article 8(3) a gatekeeper may ask the Commission to open the specification process, although the Commission has a discretion whether to engage.
Why are Apple’s five App Stores a single core platform service?
Because the Digital Markets Act defines a software application store without reference to the device on which it operates or the operating system under which its applications execute, which the Court set out at paragraph 79. Recital 14 requires a technology-neutral definition. Apple’s evidence went to how the five devices differ. It said nothing about why end users and business users chose to use the stores (paragraph 87).
Does the Commission’s iMessage classification create obligations for Apple?
No. The Court held at paragraphs 116 and 117 that no obligation in Articles 5, 6 or 7 applies to a service unless the Commission has listed that service in the operative part of a designation decision as an important gateway for business users to reach end users. iMessage is not listed, and the classification in the recitals does not change that.
For advice on gatekeeper designation, strategic market status, or the timing of a challenge to a digital markets obligation, contact Rob Bratby at Bratby Law.
