Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST NEWS: EU General Court confirms Apple’s gatekeeper designation for the App Store and iOS, (Jul 9, 2026)

By Peter Reap, J.D., LL.M.

Apple could appeal to the Court of Justice of the European Union, but has been silent so far.

The General Court of the European Union announced that on July 8, 2026, it dismissed Apple’s challenge to the European Commission’s (EC) designation of the company as a gatekeeper under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) for the Apple App Store (all five different iterations) and iOS mobile operating system. The General Court also ruled that Apple’s challenge to the EC’s classification of Apple’s iMessage service as a number-independent interpersonal communications service (NIICS) constituting a core platform service (CPS), and to the opening and closing of the EC’s investigation of iMessage, were inadmissible and dismissed (Joined Cases T-1079/23, T-1080/23, Apple v Commission; and T-214/24, Apple and Apple Distribution International v Commission ).

Background. On September 5, 2023, the EC designated, for the first time, six gatekeepers - Alphabet, Amazon, Apple, ByteDance, Meta, Microsoft under the DMA. In total, 22 core platform services (CPS) provided by gatekeepers were designated at that time, including Apple as a gatekeeper in relation to the App Store, the operating system iOS and the web browser Safari.

The EC’s 2023 decision also classified the iMessage service as an NIICS constituting a CPS. The EC also opened a market investigation to examine whether the arguments put forward by Apple in relation to the iMessage service were capable of calling into question the presumptions laid down by the DMA, according to which the undertaking fulfilled the three criteria required for it to be designated as a gatekeeper.

On February 12, 2024, the EC decided not to designate Apple as a gatekeeper in relation to iMessage. However, both the decision opening the investigation and the decision closing it retained the classification of iMessage as an NIICS constituting a CPS.

Apple then brought proceedings before the General Court challenging (1) its designation as a gatekeeper in relation to the App Store and iOS as well as certain classifications adopted by the Commission; and (2) the decisions of opening and subsequently closing the investigation regarding iMessage.

General Court ruling. First, the General Court dismissed Apple’s challenge to the gatekeeper designations based on its argument that the provision of the DMA relating to the interoperability obligations imposed on undertakings which are designated as gatekeepers. Essentially, Apple argued here that Article 6(7) of the DMA, the basis for the decision designating it as a gatekeeper, is illegal because does Article 6(7) “does not ensure a proper application of the general principle of proportionality laid down in Article 52(1) of the Charter, or compliance with certain fundamental rights, foremost among which is the right to property.”

The General Court ruled that Apple’s challenge to Article 6(7) was not admissible. It held that that provision constitutes neither the legal basis of the designation decision nor a rule having a direct legal connection with that decision. Thus, the alleged illegality of Article 6(7) cannot be pleaded in support of an application to have a gatekeeper designation overturned.

Second, the General Court confirmed the EC’s determination that the five different versions of the App Store operated by Apple—iOS App Store (for iPhone mobile phones), iPadOS App Store (for iPad electronic tablets), watchOS App Store (for Apple Watches), macOS App Store (for Mac computers) and tvOS App Store (for Apple TV television devices)—constitute a single CPS. Irrespective of the devices in question, the General Court held that those stores have the same purpose, namely to connect app developers with end users in order to facilitate the distribution of software applications. The differences alleged by Apple for the purpose of claiming that each of those stores constituted a distinct CPS, and that therefore only the iOS App Store met the thresholds required for designation as a gatekeeper, were rejected. Those differences relate primarily to the specific characteristics of the devices used and do not justify distinguishing between several core platform services, in the court’s view.

Third, the General Court ruled inadmissible Apple’s complaints relating to the classification of iMessage as an NIICS constituting a CPS. That classification does not, by itself, produce binding legal effects that bring about a change in Apple’s legal position. In particular, none of the obligations laid down by the DMA applies to iMessage since that service has not been listed in a designation decision as an important gateway. For the same reasons, the General Court also dismissed the actions directed against the decisions of opening and closing the market investigation of iMessage.

Companies: Apple Inc.

News: Antitrust GCNNews