Bu sayfa henüz çevrilmedi. Bu sayfayı ve fsfe.org'daki diğer sayfaları çevirmemize lütfen yardımcı olun, böylece insanlar mesajımızı kendi anadillerinde okuyabilirler.

Haberler

Legal Corner: How Apple’s attack on interoperability failed

Tarih::

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.

Abstract image of an apple shape outlined by a jagged, snake-like red and black form on a gray background
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:

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