Civil Society Role Grows in EU’s DMA Case Against Apple

When the Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) announced on Tuesday that the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) had granted it leave to intervene in Apple v. European Commission (T-359/25), it marked a small but telling development in how the Digital Markets Act (DMA) is being enforced. Formal enforcement authority under the regulation rests solely with the Commission — but the case is now being shaped by a civil society organization whose members have a direct stake in its outcome.

The underlying dispute concerns Apple's challenge to Article 6(7) of the DMA, which requires the company — designated as a gatekeeper under the regulation — to provide third-party services and hardware with free, effective interoperability with the features controlled by iOS and iPadOS. Apple argues the provision should not apply to it, and is also seeking to annul a March 2025 Commission decision specifying the concrete measures it must take to comply.

The case represents a challenge to Apple’s corporate identity as a closed ecosystem, with significant implications for the viability of developers seeking to build alternatives to gatekeeper-operated services.

Apple’s appeal

Upon the regulation entering into force, Apple initially offered a simple request-based procedure to meet compliance with Article 6(7). If developers wish to request access to functionality that Apple’s operating system controls, they must submit a request via a form that Apple assesses on a case-by-case basis. However, developers were not able to see beforehand what features would be available for access, and there were no guarantees that Apple would respond, or on what timeline. This led the Commission to open specification proceedings, which allow it to specify measures that a gatekeeper should implement to effectively comply with obligations under the DMA, given that the request form was insufficient to meet the obligations under 6(7).

The Commission's final measures required Apple to drastically improve the transparency of the process. For instance, the company is now required to improve access to technical documentation on features not yet available to third parties, provide timelines and contact points for interoperability requests, report on key metrics such as number of request approvals, create a tracker system to monitor the progress of the request, create a dispute mechanism, and places a higher burden of proof on Apple to justify why they have rejected a request.

Breaking down Apple’s appeal to the CJEU, Apple is bringing several legal pleas. First, Apple is alleging that Article 6(7) DMA is inconsistent with the requirements of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of proportionality, and therefore, the specification decision is unlawful. Such a principle requires that the application of laws and regulations does not restrict individual freedoms beyond what is strictly necessary, and includes balancing and testing “whether the importance of satisfying the public interest can justify the detriment to the individual’s right.”

Apple alleges that the Commission has exceeded the limits on its competence imposed by Article 291 TFEU and Article 8(2) DMA by adopting the specification decision. Apple also alleges that the Commission has “misinterpreted and misapplied” Article 6(7) DMA and has “erred in law and in fact” by imposing and specifying the requirements for Apple’s request-based process for interoperability, including the timelines imposed on Apple and the technical reference program requirements for Apple’s request-based process.

The Commission mentions in its final specification decision that they have considered Apple’s previous submissions on the principle of proportionality, Apple’s fundamental rights, and

intellectual property rights. Though Apple argues that the specification proceedings lack “precision” or predictability, the Commission writes that Articles 6 and 7 are explicitly stated to be subject to further specification and are justified to open proceedings to specify obligations.

The Commission writes that interoperability requirements will differ depending on the gatekeeper, and that “Apple’s designated operating systems are part of a vertically integrated and, in several ways, closed ecosystem comprising different layers of hardware, software and digital services.”

The Commission argues that Apple has not taken “proactive steps” to make those layers of its ecosystem available to third parties but chose to set up a “reactive request-based process,” meaning the Commission must intervene to ensure that the process is “fair, transparent and objective,” protecting the effectiveness of Article 6(7). The Commission rejects that Apple has provided sufficient evidence on how interoperability measures interfere with Apple’s intellectual property rights, arguing that none of the measures would allow developers to copy Apple’s technology or have direct access to internal information and source code about Apple’s operating system.

FSFE intervenes

The FSFE has successfully argued that it has an interest in the outcome of the case and therefore has the right to intervene. FSFE has argued that if the Court were to consider Article 6(7) of the DMA as inconsistent with the Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of proportionality, or that the specification decision is unlawful in imposing interoperability on Apple, that would result in developers and users of free and open-source software not being able to connect their applications with Apple’s operating system. This would also limit the non-profit’s “ability further to distribute and promote their work,” such as campaigning to enable app switching rights envisaged by Article 6(6) of the DMA.

The CJEU also highlighted that if the specification decision is annulled, it would likely impact FSFE members’ right to distribute their software tools according to Article 6(4) of the DMA, potentially putting FSFE’s communities of software developers at risk of violating Apple’s contractual rights when distributing interoperable free and open-source alternatives to Apple’s products. Finally, if the specification proceedings were to be annulled, this would undermine the expectations and safeguards won by the decision, such as the right of developers to obtain information about which features can be subject to interoperability before submitting a request, and channels of improved communication with Apple. For these reasons, FSFE has illustrated how the case impacts their community and campaigning work, meaning that their contribution will be heard before the Court.

FSFE has previously argued that “Apple’s dominance negatively affects not only competition with and among other companies, but software freedom, open internet, and ultimately digital democracy.” Indeed, Apple’s control over one half of the mobile ecosystem duopoly leaves developers at the mercy of its policies, which largely favor its own first-party services, while the company centralizes and encloses its ecosystem in a way that computers previously never were. As Tim Wu writes of the company’s ethos, “[i]f the good of getting everything to work together smoothly — perfectly — meant a little less freedom of use, so be it.”

Enforcing interoperability within Apple represents a major challenge to the company’s corporate identity, which has long been premised on seamless vertical integration. However, Apple’s claim that centralized control is required to protect end-user privacy and security is under scrutiny by regulators, with civil society claiming the contrary.