On 8 July 2026, in joined cases T-1079/23, T-1080/23 and T-214/24, Apple v. European Commission, the General Court of the European Union (the “Court”) dismissed Apple’s challenges relating to its designation as a gatekeeper under the Digital Markets Act (the “DMA”). The case raises focused questions concerning the operation of the gatekeeper designation mechanism and the treatment of iMessage. Apple’s extensive challenge therefore offered the Court an opportunity to clarify further both the scope and the operation of several provisions of the DMA.
Background to the dispute
An enterprise meeting certain quantitative thresholds is presumed to satisfy the requirements for designation as a gatekeeper in respect of the relevant CPSs. In broad terms, “gatekeepers” are providers of core platform services (CPS) which, by reason of their size, reach and position within the digital economy, may act as important gateways between business users and end users. The underlying substantive conditions can broadly be summarised as follows: the enterprise
- has a significant impact on the internal market,
- provides a CPS that constitutes an important gateway between business users and end users, and;
- enjoys an entrenched and durable position, or is likely to do so (as more broadly explained in other contributions)
In July 2023, in accordance with Article 3(3) DMA, Apple notified the Commission that the Article 3(2) thresholds were met in relation to the iOS App Store, iOS, Safari and iMessage. Apple nevertheless argued that iMessage should not be characterised as a number-independent interpersonal communications service (“NIICS”) (which is a messaging service operating without a number) and sought to rebut the gatekeeper presumptions relating to that service. Apple further submitted that its five application stores associated with iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, Mac and Apple TV constituted separate CPSs, with the result that only the iOS App Store met the relevant quantitative thresholds.
On 5 September 2023, the Commission designated Apple as a gatekeeper in relation to the App Store, iOS and Safari, while opening a market investigation concerning iMessage. In February 2024 it closed that investigation, concluding that Apple should not be designated as a gatekeeper in respect of iMessage, although it continued to regard iMessage as a NIICS and hence as a CPS. Apple challenged the decision before the Court, including in its action a challenge to the legality of Article 6(7) of DMA, providing gatekeepers to ensure free of charge interoperability in relation to operating systems with, inter alios, service providers and Commission’s confirmation of iMessage as a NIICS.
The findings of the Court
The Court dismissed all the arguments raised by Apple. First, it rejected Apple’s qualification of the App Store as being fragmented in separate application stores associated with Apple’s several devices, with only the iOS App Store individually meeting the quantitative gatekeeper thresholds. The Court agreed with the Commission that the five stores should instead be regarded as a sole CPS. The key point, for this finding, was the function of the service rather than the characteristics of the device through which it is accessed. Under the DMA, an application store performs an online intermediation function by connecting business users, namely app developers, with end users in order to facilitate the distribution of software applications. That function remains essentially the same whether the application is being distributed to any Apple device. Consequently, an enterprise cannot necessarily fragment a functionally unified platform service according to the device or technical environment through which it is supplied in order to assess DMA thresholds separately.
The Court then held inadmissible the pleas on Article 6(7) DMA, which requires gatekeepers to permit, free of charge, effective interoperability with certain hardware and software features controlled through their operating systems. Apple argued that the application of those obligations to iOS disproportionately interfered with certain fundamental rights, notably its right to property, and sought under Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) to challenge the legality of Article 6(7) incidentally in its action against the designation decision. The Court recalled that such a plea may concern a provision which either constitutes the legal basis of the contested decision or has a sufficiently direct legal connection with it. Neither condition was satisfied: Apple’s designation was based on Article 3 DMA, while the obligations under Article 6(7) arose from the DMA itself once Apple had been designated and did not result from the designation decision. The legality of Article 6(7) could therefore not be challenged incidentally in the proceedings against that decision.
The Court finally held inadmissible Apple’s challenges concerning the classification of iMessage as a NIICS and hence as a CPS. Since the Commission had ultimately not designated Apple as a gatekeeper in relation to iMessage, none of the DMA obligations applied to that service. The classification, standing alone, therefore produced no binding legal effects capable of altering Apple’s legal position. The Court further noted that national authorities applying the European Electronic Communications Code were not bound by the Commission’s classification adopted for DMA purposes.
The way forward
The judgment provides several useful clarifications. First, for DMA purposes, the identification of a CPS is functional: technically distinct versions of a platform service may constitute a single CPS where they perform essentially the same intermediary function for business and end users. This approach gives the Commission some meaningful room to prevent technical segmentation of services from undermining the gatekeeper thresholds. Second, most significantly from an institutional perspective, the Court restated that claimants, like Apple, could not challenge, under Article 277 TFEU, specific provisions of the DMA, such as Article 6(7), which did not specifically form the basis for the Commission’s decision. In the same way, Commission’s classifications (such as the qualification of iMessage as NIICS), are not independently challengeable under Article 263 TFEU, unless they affect the applicant’s legal position.
Share on
