Legal Corner: How Apple’s attack on interoperability failed
8 July 2026 marks a significant milestone in the fight for
interoperability and software freedom, for both developers and users:
the Court of Justice of the European Union dismissed Apple’s challenge
against its designation under the Digital Markets Act. This judgement
confirms that Apple remains subject to the DMA.

CC-BY-SA 4.0. by
Rahak for FSFE
Apple’s designation as a gatekeeper
As one of the largest technology companies in the world, Apple's
power spans key aspects of software distribution, operating systems,
and devices. This power distorts digital markets and negatively affects
not only fair competition, but also software freedom and an open
internet. For this reason, in September 2023 and under the Digital Markets Act
(DMA), the European Commission designated Apple as
a “gatekeeper”. In that decision, Apple was
designated in relation to the App Store, its operating systems iOS and
iPadOS, and its browser Safari.
The DMA imposes obligations that include rules on uninstalling apps
and changing defaults, enabling alternative app stores and software
distribution, and granting effective interoperability with key software
and hardware features controlled by gatekeepers. Besides Apple,
designated gatekeepers currently include Alphabet, Amazon,
Booking, ByteDance, Meta, and Microsoft.
Apple’s answer to the DMA: an attack against interoperability
After being designated as a gatekeeper, Apple challenged the
European Commission’s decision before the Court of Justice of the
European Union (CJEU). One of Apple’s central arguments was that the
interoperability obligations of the law were disproportionate under the
EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and interfered with its "right to
property".
Article 6(7) DMA requires gatekeepers to allow third-party
hardware and software providers effective interoperability,
free of charge, with the same hardware and software features available
to the gatekeeper’s own services or products.
In November 2023, Apple brought an action against the European
Commission. It asked the Court to declare Article 6(7) DMA inapplicable
and to annul the decision to designate Apple as being subject to the
interoperability obligation for iOS.
Several key parties intervened in the case brought by Apple against
the Commission (T-1080/23) including the European Parliament, the
Council of the European Union, France, and the industry representative
Coalition for App Fairness. All of these parties threw their weight
behind the Commission. The Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) was
the only charitable organisation permitted to intervene and joined
forces against Apple.
The goal of the FSFE was to hold Apple accountable under the DMA in
a way that protects developer rights. In its intervention, the FSFE
highlighted that Apple is being regulated in the public interest,
asserting that the company should compete on trustworthiness. Both
developers and users should have the option of using alternative
services and products rather than being locked into those offered by
Apple. The FSFE urged that the case be dismissed entirely.
In October 2025, the FSFE’s lawyer, Dr. Martin Husovec, stressed, at
the hearings of the CJEU, that innovation does not exempt a company
from regulation. Apple's products form an ecosystem in which value is
created not only by the company itself, but also by independent
external developers and consumers who own the devices. Therefore it is
entirely legitimate and necessary to coerce selected gatekeepers’
products into interoperability.
The verdict: Apple’s obligations remain intact and procedural
circumvention around interoperability not allowed
In July 2026, in its judgment, the
CJEU dismissed Apple’s challenges
against its designation under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) for the App
Store and iOS. The Cupertino company remains subject to the DMA, and
its attempt to use this case to attack the law’s interoperability
framework was rejected. The Court ensured that Apple’s obligations as a
designated gatekeeper remain fully intact.
In this case, however, the Court did not rule on the substance of
Article 6(7). Instead, it clarified that Apple could not use a case
concerning its gatekeeper status to challenge interoperability rules
applicable only after designation. The Court held that Article 6(7) DMA
"does not govern the conditions for designating an undertaking as a
gatekeeper", but "merely defines the interoperability
obligations" that apply once a company has been designated.
This is a matter that extends far beyond Apple. Whether a company
meets the legal criteria to be considered a gatekeeper is not the issue
here; the obligations that follow from that status are. For the DMA to
work, gatekeepers must not be able to delay or weaken enforcement
through procedural detours.
Device Neutrality applies to alternative app stores
The judgment also dealt with a central aspect of software
distribution: how Apple’s App Stores are governed under the DMA. Apple
argued that rather than as a single ecosystem, its App Stores should be
treated as separate distribution entities depending on the type of
device: one for smartphones, one for tablets, one for desktop
computers, one for watches, and one for TVs. If this argument had
succeeded, the scope of the App Store designation could have been
narrowed.
The Court rejected this approach and stressed that a software
application store "allows business users to offer software applications
to end users". It also pointed out that Apple’s App Stores are used for
the same basic purpose: distributing software applications between
developers and users.
Finally, the Court supported a technology-neutral reading of the
DMA. It held that the classification of a software application store
does not depend "either on the device on which that store operates or
on the operating system on which the software applications offered
within that store run". The Court stated that the DMA’s core platform
service definitions should be "technology neutral" and should not vary
according to the "technological choices made by the gatekeeper". By
establishing this, the Court also agreed with the arguments of the FSFE
and the Commission that the DMA is device-agnostic and should not
depend on the specific form factors dictated by a gatekeeper.
A step forward for Software Freedom
This judgement brings us one step closer to one of the key pillars
of the FSFE's vision for
2048: Device Neutrality. Or in other words:
everyone should have the right to install and uninstall any software on
their own devices.
The DMA approaches Device
Neutrality through several connected obligations:
- Article 6(4) opens the door to alternative app stores and software distribution.
-
Article 6(3) gives users more control by requiring that gatekeepers
allow them to uninstall apps and change default settings.
- Article 6(7) requires effective interoperability with key software and hardware features.
These rules, along with others, contribute to ensure that
third-party software not only reach users, but also function
effectively on gatekeeper controlled devices.
However, there is still a lot of work to be done. This particular
case may be closed (Apple can still appeal), but it is not the only
one. Apple has opened a second legal case against the European
Commission’s interoperability specification decision.This decision
includes measures aimed at improving transparency and access for
developers. These measures include clearer procedures for
interoperability requests, improved access to technical information and
communication channels, and rules for software and hardware
interoperability. The FSFE
has also been permitted to intervene in this new case.
Moreover, a gap persists between the law on paper and the
reality faced by developers. A recent report from the
FSFE shows how Apple’s request-based approach has left developers
without effective access to its mobile operating system
functionalities. Despite the European
Commission’s detailed procedures on software and hardware
interoperability, developers still face uncertainty, delays, and
refusals when seeking access to Apple-controlled features.
Developers: send your feedback
The participation of the FSFE in these two interventions shows that
equal and fair access for developers should not depend solely on the
discretionary control of gatekeepers. The Free Software tradition,
built on open standards and community oversight, shows that
interoperability can be governed as a digital commons, not only as a
private platform privilege. Effective interoperability should serve
users and developers, not only platform owners.
The FSFE invites developers who have requested access to either
software or hardware features under Article 6(7) of the DMA, or who
considered doing so but were discouraged by the process, to get in touch.
Your experiences can help us document how interoperability works in
practice. They can also support better DMA enforcement for Free
Software developers and computer users.
Timeline of the case
-
September 5, 2023: The Commission designates
Apple as a gatekeeper for the App Store, iOS and Safari, and
separately opens a market investigation into whether iMessage should
also be designated.
- September 6, 2023: The designation decision is formally notified to Apple.
-
November 2023: Apple
files an appeal three separate actions before the General Court,
against the decision opening the iMessage investigation, against parts
of the designation decision.
- February 2024 - The FSFE requests to intervene.
-
March 7, 2024: Apple's gatekeeper obligations for the App Store, iOS
and Safari become legally binding, six months after notification.
-
August 2024 - The CJEU
allows the FSFE to intervene in the case.
-
September 2024 - The
FSFE submits its arguments to the CJEU.
-
February 2025 - Court
partially dismisses Apple's requests for confidential treatment.
-
October 21, 2025: The
General Court holds a hearing on Case T-1080/23.
-
July 8, 2026: The General Court, sitting in its Eighth Chamber with
five judges, delivers judgment dismissing all three of Apple's
actions.
Support FSFE