500 M€ d’amende pour Apple, 200 M€ pour Meta : en avril 2025, les premières « sanctions DMA » étaient tombées.
Apple had been singled out for preventing app developers from informing users about more advantageous offers available outside the App Store. Meta had been targeted for its so‑called “pay or consent” model, which required users to accept the merging of their personal data across its services… unless they paid a subscription.
L’un et l’autre ont déposé, en juillet 2025, un recours auprès du Tribunal de l’UE. La Commission européenne y fait référence dans son dernier rapport annuel sur l’implémentation du DMA (période de mars 2025 à mars 2026).
Selon Apple, il n’y a pas un, mais cinq App Stores
The EU Court still has to rule in other cases involving Apple. It challenges, in particular, the idea that the App Store constitutes a single essential platform service. According to Apple, its five variants—iPhone, iPad, Mac, Apple TV, and Apple Watch—should be treated separately, since each would serve a different end-user purpose. Examples would include:
- Types and numbers of available apps
- Relative usage frequencies
- Presentation of apps
- Search results
The distinction would also apply from the point of view of business users (app developers). In particular because they optimize for the OS they target, and because each version of the App Store has its own marketing and performance measurement tools.
The European Commission does not dispute these elements. But it says they mainly concern the nature, function and use of Apple’s different devices. Not the true purpose of the App Store, which is common to all versions: to act as an intermediary service for app distribution. It adds, among other things, that :
- The rules are very similar
- The support contact point is the same
- The tool to submit and manage apps is the same
- A single user account suffices
- It is possible to buy an app once for all Apple OSes (universal purchases)
Is iMessage provided “for remuneration”?
For now, the European Commission has not subjected iMessage to the DMA. But it does not exclude it: if designated as an essential platform service, it would be subject to the obligations of Article 7, as a “person-to-person communications service not based on numbering.”
Apple argues that iMessage falls outside this scope, because it is not provided “for remuneration” (a criterion imposed by the European Electronic Communications Code). The company explains that it does not monetize the service through hardware sales, nor via processing of personal data. It adds that devices can be used without iMessage. And that resale does not prevent the next user from reconfiguring the app. As for in‑app purchases, these should not be considered remuneration. Not only are they optional, but they are conducted via the App Store.
The European Commission cites CJUE jurisprudence. It holds that the Court has taken a broad interpretation of remuneration. It does not only include direct payment; it also covers indirect forms… such as the sale of devices paired with a service. And it is not mandatory that remuneration be paid directly by the recipient of that service. Brussels adds that iMessage is usable only on Apple devices. The device thus earns remuneration through hardware sales… and the accompanying apps. And contrary to its claims, iMessage plays a significant role in its marketing.
ByteDance, Meta, Opera… The EU Court is being urged to act
Meta has also filed an appeal with the EU Court. It challenges Messenger’s designation as an essential platform service. Its main argument: the service does not constitute a “major access point enabling business users to reach their end users,” which is one of the criteria for designation as an essential platform service.
Opera has also sought relief from the EU Court. It challenges the decision not to designate Microsoft as a gatekeeper with respect to its Edge browser.
The European Commission is also a defendant in a proceeding involving ByteDance. The Chinese group, publisher of TikTok, has appealed the tribunal’s decision confirming its designation as a gatekeeper.
Facebook Marketplace n’est plus soumis au DMA…
Meta’s Marketplace service was at one time on the list of essential platform services. In April 2025, the European Commission removed it. Meta had requested its removal a year earlier, explaining it had taken steps to restrict its public use. Brussels confirmed that in 2024 there were fewer than 10,000 active EU-based business users. This threshold is one of the quantitative criteria for DMA coverage.
… tandis qu’Apple Ads et Apple Maps y échappent finalement
In November 2025, the European Commission notified Apple that two of its services had crossed the relevant quantitative thresholds (namely 10,000 active business users and at least 45 million monthly active end users in the EU). On one side, Apple Ads; on the other, Apple Maps.
Apple argued that these services were not major entry points for businesses. In February 2026, Brussels agreed, noting that in the EU, Apple Maps had a “relatively low” usage rate; and Apple Ads, a “very limited scale in the online advertising sector.”
Apple and Meta contest their respective fines
The 200 M€ fine on Meta stems from a breach of Article 5(2). It requires obtaining end users’ consent to combine/cross their personal data between an essential platform service and other services. Those who do not consent must have access to a functionally equivalent, though less personalized, alternative. The “Consent or Pay” model was deemed non‑compliant, the European Commission determined. Despite its appeal, Meta announced in December 2025 its intention to offer a “DMA‑compatible” system.
The 500 M€ fine levied against Apple results from a breach of Article 5(4). Broadly, this requires allowing companies to communicate, promote and contract their offers freely with end users outside essential platform services. Brussels found that developers using the App Store faced too many restrictions in this regard—neither necessary nor proportionate.
Google également jugé non conforme sur les boutiques d’applications…
Another DMA proceeding touching the App Store (indirectly, nonetheless) remains open. Its object: Article 6(4), which requires enabling the installation of third‑party app stores.
In April 2025, the European Commission informed Apple of its preliminary findings. verdict: non‑compliant. The contractual terms imposed on developers are discouraging, between fees charged and overly strict eligibility conditions. It is also too burdensome for end users to install apps via this route.
Alphabet is not compliant on the app stores question either. An ongoing proceeding is under way. In March 2025, the European Commission found that Google’s parent company had technically impeded certain aspects of redirecting end users to external offers. Brussels also denounced unreasonable costs tied to user acquisition (a commission on each purchase of digital goods or services for an unduly long period).
… comme sur les moteurs de recherche
Google is also under scrutiny in the search engine segment. In March 2025, the European Commission informed Google of non‑compliance with Article 6(5). Rationale: it treated its own services more favorably, both in the sorting of results and by reserving placements for them with enhanced visual formats.
Another open proceeding against Google concerns Article 6(12). This provision guarantees that business users of search engines have fair access terms. This is not the case, according to Brussels. Through its reputation‑abuse regulation, the American group would penalize websites that host content from commercial partners, directly affecting a widely used and legitimate monetization lever.
Apple réfute aussi les exigences d’interopérabilité du DMA
Apple has not shied away from the interoperability requirements Brussels imposed under Article 6(7). Asked to ensure third‑party connected devices enjoy the same level of connectivity to iOS as Apple’s own devices, it challenged Brussels’ technical instructions. Not without implementing a few elements, for example on proximity pairing (opened to testing for iOS developers by late 2025).
The European Commission, however, closed its proceeding against Apple under Article 6(3). It found that the company had corrected course by facilitating the uninstall of pre‑installed iOS apps and by changing default settings, including the browser selection.
