EU General Court rejects Apple challenges to European Commission DMA designation decisions

On July 8, 2026, the EU General Court (GC) delivered its judgment in three joint cases regarding Apple’s challenges to the European Commission (EC) decisions to (1) designate Apple as a gatekeeper under Article 3 of the EU Digital Markets Act (DMA) in relation to the App Store, iOS, and Safari; (2) open a market investigation as to whether the statutory presumption under the DMA that iMessage constitutes an “important gateway” because the service meets the quantitative user thresholds should be rebutted; and (3) close the iMessage investigation without designating Apple as a gatekeeper in relation to iMessage, while maintaining its classification as a number-independent interpersonal communications service (NIICS).

The GC dismissed all three actions in their entirety and upheld Apple’s gatekeeper designation. The challenge to the designation of Apple’s five app stores (for iOS, iPadOS, watchOS, macOS, and tvOS) as a single core platform service (CPS) was dismissed on the merits; the others were dismissed on procedural grounds.

Gatekeeper designations

Apple argued that (1) Article 2(b) of the designation decision designating iOS as an "important gateway" was unlawful since it triggers the imposition of various interoperability obligations under Article 6(7) DMA that are contrary to the principle of proportionality under Article 52(1) of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Charter) and fundamental rights such as the right to property; and (2) the EC erred in treating its five app stores as a single CPS. Apple argued that each store has a different principal purpose (intermediating apps for its respective device type); that each is used differently by end and business users; that the additional factors the EC relied on (common rules, tools, and branding) are legally irrelevant because they say nothing about purpose; and that the EC's approach would automatically sweep in any future Apple app store, whatever the device. Apple's legal hook was Section D(2)(b) of the DMA Annex, which requires an undertaking to treat as distinct any CPSs used for different purposes by end users or business users.

The GC rejected all of Apple’s pleas:

• Inadmissibility of the plea of illegality against Article 6(7) DMA: The GC recalled that a plea of illegality under Article 277 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) enables a party to challenge an underlying legislative provision indirectly by challenging a decision that applies it, but only where that provision is the decision's legal basis or is directly connected to it. In this case, the GC found that neither was true. As the GC explained, the DMA operates in two distinct stages: Designation (Article 3) decides whether a firm is a gatekeeper; Articles 5 through 7 decide what obligations follow. It noted that the designation decision rests on Article 3 alone and that Article 6(7) appears nowhere in its reasoning. According to the GC, Apple's duty to comply with Article 6(7) flows not from the designation decision but from Article 3(10) read with Article 6(1). The GC accepted that designation is a precondition for those obligations but held that it is not an implementing measure for them.

  The GC also rejected Apple’s arguments that inadmissibility would deny it effective judicial protection under Article 47 of the Charter. It found that the denial of Apple’s claim was proportionate because “Apple retains the possibility of raising a plea of illegality in respect of the provision which it challenges in the present case in the context of other proceedings.” Those “other proceedings” include separate actions to annul the EC's two interoperability specification decisions of March 19, 2025, (one requiring Apple to open nine iOS connectivity features to third-party devices such as smartwatches and headphones, the other setting the transparency requirements, deadlines, and dispute-resolution rules governing how developers request interoperability), where Apple is already pleading that Article 6(7) DMA is illegal under Article 277 TFEU in its pending appeals.

• Definition of “App Store”: The GC held that the definition of a software app store (1) does not depend on the device or operating system on which the store operates or on which the applications run; and (2) is technology-neutral, as confirmed by Recital 14 DMA. Because Apple failed to show that each store serves a different purpose—all five fulfil the purpose of enabling app transactions—the EC was entitled to treat the App Store as a single CPS. The GC held that these findings alone were sufficient. It added that the EC was in any event entitled to take into account further factors—common rules, tools, and development services and common branding across the five stores—which reinforce the common-purpose finding. More broadly, the GC confirmed that the EC may consider all relevant factors showing that several services are in fact a single CPS, a power which the GC linked to the anti-circumvention duty in Article 13 DMA and described as "all the more necessary" where the EC rejects the undertaking's own presentation of its services.

iMessage as an NIICS and related market investigation

Apple argued that the EC erred in classifying iMessage as an NIICS and, consequently, as a CPS. It challenged that classification in both the designation decision (where iMessage was classified as an NIICS in the recitals) and in the decision closing the market investigation, seeking to annul the latter insofar as it was predicated on the finding that iMessage is an NIICS.

The GC rejected Apple’s case as inadmissible:

• iMessage as a CPS: The GC found that, although the designation decision classifies iMessage as an NIICS (and therefore a CPS), it does so only in the recitals, and iMessage is not listed as an important gateway in the operative part. As the recitals classifying iMessage are not the essential basis for the operative part, and only the operative part produces binding legal effects, the classification does not bring about a distinct change in Apple’s legal position. The DMA imposes no obligations, such that there are no legal consequences as a result of classification alone, unless the service is listed in the operative part of a designation decision.
• Market investigation into iMessage: The GC held that Apple’s action for annulment of the EC decision closing the market investigation was inadmissible because that decision produced no binding legal effects capable of bringing about a distinct change in Apple’s legal position; the EC merely concluded that Apple was not to be designated a gatekeeper for iMessage. The classification does not impose any DMA obligations, which arise only for CPSs listed in the operative part of a designation decision.

Final remarks

Although the GC rejected Apple's challenge to Article 6(7) DMA, it did so purely on admissibility; the substance of Apple's proportionality and property-rights arguments remains undecided. The GC expressly noted that they could be raised in other proceedings, notably including the abovementioned challenge to specification decisions adopted under Article 8(2) DMA, which is precisely the route Apple is already pursuing. That said, a first-instance ruling is unlikely before late 2027, and Apple must comply in the meantime.