When asked about the correspondence from Apple, the Commission said that its door will always be open, but that it is the “sole responsibility” of the gatekeepers to come up with product changes that comply with the law.
“The Commission made it very clear whenever Apple’s proposals were at the outset falling short of effective compliance and encouraged the company to seek market feedback,” said Commission spokesperson Lea Zuber.
“Last [month’s] decision only addresses the solution that Apple decided to roll out, not any other hypothetical approach that the company might have been considering,” said Zuber.
Apple’s appeal potentially sets up a court fight in Luxembourg that should clarify what exact responsibilities the Commission has to engage in dialogue with firms under the DMA, said Kay Jebelli, a legal adviser to the Chamber of Progress, which is partly funded by Apple.
He said the outcome of the noncompliance investigation into Apple calls into question the Commission’s stance that the DMA is a dialogue-based instrument.
Apple’s decision to hold off on implementing its proposed changes came at the same time as Meta decided to roll out product changes in November 2024 under a separate noncompliance investigation. Meta’s changes initially received a cool reception from the EU executive, but were later cited as one of the reasons that the Facebook owner received a reduced fine, noted Jebelli.
Last month, as the Commission slapped Apple with the €500 million fine, it doled out a €200 million fine to Meta, with a reduction based on its decision to consider the infringement as ending with the November offer.
“We will have to see what the court clarifies in terms of the Commission’s obligations, as the DMA does not impose many limits,” said Jebelli. “The EC sees [the DMA] as a joint venture between [itself] and the designated companies — that implies that both sides have certain obligations,” he said.