CASE HUB See further, timeline. Case facts Outline Commission Digital Markets Act investigation into Apple’s: (i) rules on steering for the App Store, (ii) compliance with user choice obligations, and (iii) contract terms. Latest development On 23 April 2025, the Commission issued its infringement decision and imposed fines totalling €500m on Apple for breaching its anti-steering obligation under the DMA.On the same day, the Commission: (i) close its investigation into Apple's user choice obligations under the DMA, and (ii) informed Apple of its preliminary view that Apple's contract terms concerning alternative app distribution breach the DMA. Parties • Apple Background On 5 September 2023, the Commission designated (amongst other undertakings) Apple as a “gatekeeper”, meaning that it must comply with all obligations under the DMA.On 25 March 2024, the Commission opened two non-compliance investigations into Apple’s: (i) rules on steering for the App Store, and (ii) compliance with user choice obligations.On 24 June 2024, the Commission issued its preliminary view that Apple’s steering rules for the App Store were in breach of the DMA because they prevent app developers

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 24 June 2024; it is longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU and/or Article 102 TFEU investigation into the use of Apple’s App Store by developers offering apps which are directly competing with apps or services offered by Apple (excluding music streaming apps or ebooks/audiobooks apps for which separate proceedings were initiated in cases AT.40437 and AT.40652) Latest development On 24 June 2024, the Commission announced that it had closed its investigation. The Commission made the above decision following the designation of Apple as a

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 22/10/2025; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline. Case facts Outline CMA DMCCA 2024 investigation into whether Apple should be designated as having SMS in the provision of its mobile platform. Latest development On 22 October 2025, the CMA published its final decision designating Apple with SMS in the supply of its mobile platform in the UK. Parties • Apple Background On 23 January 2025, the CMA published its investigation notice which set out the CMA’s grounds for launching the investigation. On the same day, the CMA published an invitation to comment (ITC) setting out the scope of its investigation, the main avenues of investigation and

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the judgment of 31 March 2023; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline and commentary. Case facts Outline Appeal by the Apple Inc. against the CMA’s decision of 22 November 2022 to make a market investigation reference in relation to the supply of mobile browsers and mobile browser engines in the UK as well as the distribution of cloud gaming service through app stores on mobile devices in the UK. Latest development On 31 March 2023, the CAT issued its judgment in which it upheld Apple’s appeal. The CAT held that section 131 of the Enterprise Act 2002 did not apply to the CMA’s decision of 22 November 2022, as the CMA had published a market study notice, and was proposing to make a reference under section 131 of the Enterprise Act 2002 in relation to the matter specified in the market study notice. The time limits in section 131B of the Enterprise Act 2002 therefore applied. The CMA

CASE HUB ARCHIVED–this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision to accept commitments on 11 July 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into whether Apple abused its dominant position in markets for mobile wallets on iOS devices (AT.40452) Latest development On 11 July 2024, the Commission accepted commitments from Apple (see details below), and therefore closed its investigation.In parallel to the above commitments decision, the Commission also adopted a second decision closing its investigation into online restrictions and alleged refusals of access to Apple Pay for specific products of rivals that the Commission also opened in June 2020. This second decision also closed all proceedings in relation to the UK, which no longer forms part of the EEA. Parties • Apple Inc (Apple): Apple is a US based company. It designs, manufactures, and markets personal computers and related personal computing and mobile communication devices along with a variety of related software, services,

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this archived case hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 22 November 2024; it is no longer maintained. See further, timeline, commentary and related cases. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 101 TFEU and/or Article 102 TFEU investigation into Apple Inc’s App Store rules and their impact on competition in music streaming and e-books/audiobooks (AT.40652). Latest development On 22 November 2024, the Commission closed its investigation following the withdrawal of the complaint filed against Apple by an e-book and audiobook distributor. Parties • Apple Inc (Apple); Apple is a US based company. It designs, manufactures, and markets personal computers and related personal computing and mobile

CASE HUB ARCHIVED—this cae hub reflects the position at the date of the decision of 4 March 2024; it is longer maintained. See further, timeline, related cases and commentary. Case facts Outline European Commission Article 102 TFEU investigation into Apple’s App Store rules and their impact on competition in music streaming (AT.40437). Latest development On 4 March 2024, the Commission issued its infringement decision and imposed a fine of over €1.8bn for abusing its dominant position in the market for the distribution of music streaming apps to iPhone and iPad users (iOS users) through its App Store. In particular, the Commission found that Apple applied restrictions on app developers preventing them from informing iOS users about alternative and cheaper music subscription services available outside of the app. Parties • Apple Inc (Apple); Apple is a US based company. It designs, manufactures, and markets personal computers and related personal computing and mobile communication devices along with a variety of related software, services, peripherals, and networking solutions. Apple sells its products worldwide through its online stores,

Law360: European authorities provisionally accused Apple's App Store of violating its new digital antitrust law designed to curtail the power of Big Tech, claiming the iPhone maker's guidelines unfairly prevent developers from steering consumers to alternative platforms.

MLex: A total of 34 companies and associations, including Spotify, Schibsted and Proton, have written to the European Commission, expressing concern over Apple's plans to comply with new EU tech legislation regulating ‘gatekeeper’ digital platforms, the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Apple's alternative fees and commissions for app developers are ‘manifestly not compliant,’ they said.

Law360: The Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) refused on 12 April 2024 to toss a £785m proposed class action by app developers against Apple over commission payments after finding that the claimants had a real shot at showing that the case was governed by UK law.

Law360, London: The European Court of Justice (ECJ)’s ruling against Apple and Ireland last week runs contrary to its logic in a 2022 State aid ruling, potentially giving the European Commission a reason to think it can decide tax norms across Europe, tax experts said.

MLex: Apple believes age checks aren’t needed for most apps, so its App Store should not conduct blanket age verification, the company said in a white paper today. As age assurance and minor safety become an increasingly hot topic for lawmakers all over the world, the question in the EU of who is responsible for keeping minors away from harmful content is yet to be determined: Meta has been advocating for age verification on the operating system level, while Apple thinks it should be in place only for some apps.