EU COURT REJECTS APPLE'S FIVE APP STORE DEFENCE

The EU's second-highest court just rejected Apple's most creative attempt to escape the Digital Markets Act. Judges from the EU General Court ruled that Apple cannot treat its five separate app stores as independent platforms to avoid gatekeeper obligations for the App Store. The decision affirms the 2023 designation of iOS, the App Store, and Safari as core platform services that must comply with the DMA's interoperability requirements.

Apple had argued that it operates five distinct app stores: one each for iPhones, iPads, Apple Watches, Apple TVs, and Macs. In the company's view, only the iOS App Store crossed the gatekeeper threshold, and the others should not be lumped together as a single one. The court disagreed, saying these stores "Irrespective of the devices in question, those stores have the same purpose, namely to connect ​app developers with end ​users to facilitate ⁠the distribution of software applications," regardless of which device runs them.

you may like

APPLE OPENS SUBSCRIPTIONS TO CROSS-DEVELOPER BUNDLES ON IOS 27

SF CITY ATTORNEY DEMANDS APPLE AND GOOGLE REMOVE 13+ NUDIFY APPS

APPLE NEO PRICES ARE UP TO $699, BUT NOT IF YOU SHOP SMART. HERE'S HOW

THE FIVE-STORE ARGUMENT

The strategy was never subtle. By splitting its app distribution into five separate storefronts, Apple aimed to keep the iPad and Mac App Stores below the DMA's gatekeeper thresholds. The EU General Court saw through the structural fiction. The ruling upholds the DMA's gatekeeper designation, agreeing that all the app stores serve the same purpose. The judges' language is blunt: the stores have the same purpose of connecting developers with end users to distribute software. Hardware platform differences do not change that function.

Apple can still appeal to the EU Court of Justice, the bloc's highest court, but the bar for overturning a General Court ruling on factual findings is very high. The company is already deep in other DMA-related litigation, including an appeal against a €500 million fine for anti-competitive steering policies that is still pending. It is also currently appealing a decision that would force it to open technical documentation and iOS features to third-party services.

IMESSAGE: A NARROW SPACE BUT NOT FOR TOO LONG

The ruling also touched Apple's messaging service, though the immediate consequences are less severe there. Apple had preemptively tried to avoid having iMessage classified as a (NIICS), which would subject it to DMA interoperability rules. The European Commission had argued that iMessage qualifies as a NIICS, but the court found that classification "does not, by itself, produce binding legal effects that bring about a change in Apple’s legal position" for Apple right now.

That language is a careful piece of judicial framing. It does not say iMessage is not a NIICS. It says the Commission's preliminary view does not change Apple's legal obligations yet. The practical effect is that iMessage has avoided a direct DMA mandate for the moment, but the door remains wide open for future investigations. Apple's preemptive attempt to kill the classification has failed, meaning the European Commission can still pursue the matter and designate iMessage as a gatekeeper service later if it chooses to finish the analysis.

iMessage not being regulated is significant for Apple's ecosystem strategy. The company has long resisted making iMessage interoperable with third-party messaging apps, arguing that would compromise security and privacy. DMA proponents argue that iMessage's market power (especially among younger users in Europe) creates a lock-in effect that stifles competition. The court's ruling does not resolve that debate, but it leaves the Commission with a clean path to act.

WHAT THIS MEANS FOR DMA ENFORCEMENT

The General Court's ruling is the strongest signal yet that the DMA's gatekeeper designations will hold up to legal challenge. Apple, Meta, Google, and others have all tested various structural arguments to carve out parts of their platforms. Apple's five-store strategy was one of the more sophisticated attempts, precisely because it relied on a plausible reading of the law's thresholds. The court's rejection suggests regulators will be able to look past corporate reorganisation and labelling games.

For the App Store specifically, the ruling means Apple must comply with the DMA's interoperability obligations: allowing third-party app stores, enabling sideloading, and offering alternative payment systems. Apple has already made some changes in Europe, including introducing a core technology fee and allowing alternative app marketplaces, but the company has done so under protest and continues to litigate the underlying rules. This ruling removes one of its strongest legal shields.

The DMA enforcement track is accelerating. The European Commission has opened multiple investigations into Apple, Meta, and Google for non-compliance, and the General Court's willingness to back the Commission's designations strengthens its hand in those cases. Apple now faces a choice: continue fighting through every possible appeal, knowing the highest court is unlikely to reverse factual findings, or begin genuine compliance and negotiate the details of interoperability.

THE BROADER PICTURE

Apple's legal troubles in Europe are not isolated. The company faces parallel investigations under the DMA, the Digital Services Act, and traditional competition law. The €500 million fine for anti-competitive steering policies is still being appealed. Each case chips away at the walled garden.

The five-store ruling is particularly damaging to Apple because it closes a loophole the company had explicitly designed for. Apple's organisational structure, with separate App Store teams for each hardware platform, was presented to regulators as evidence of independent services. The court looked at the economic reality and saw a single distribution monopoly in different skins.

What comes next is not just about Apple. Every platform company with multiple product lines is now on notice that the DMA's definitions will be applied to the function of the service, not the corporate labels. Google's Play Store on phones versus tablets versus Chromebooks, Meta's various messaging apps: all could face similar scrutiny if the Commission decides to aggregate them.

what to read next

CHEAPER APPLE VISION HEADSET IS DEAD!

YOU CAN STILL GET THE APPLE TV 4K AT OLD PRICES! HERE'S HOW.

NO M6 PRO & MAX. APPLE JUMPS STRAIGHT TO AI FOCUSED M7.

For consumers, the practical effect will take years. The ruling does not immediately change how the App Store works or force iMessage to open up. But it establishes legal precedent that makes eventual change more likely. Apple will appeal, the process will drag on, and in the meantime the company will implement DMA compliance under duress while fighting the very rules it is following. That gap, between complying and accepting, is where the next phase of the battle will be fought.