So yes it wasn’t just a mistake. It was strategic noncompliance, dressed up in U.S.-style expectations of “ongoing regulatory dialogue.”
That might work in Washington, where you negotiate settlements, stall for time, or wait for court rulings. But in the EU’s codified, administrative regime, obligations kick in automatically once designated, and if you don’t comply, the burden is on you, not the regulator to fix it.
it’s about Apple trying to play an American-style game in a European court, and losing. The final ruling reads less like confusion and more like calculated foot-dragging under the mistaken assumption that the EU would “work with them.” It didn’t and legally, it doesn’t have to.
I thought Apple was supposed to listen to what the EU told them. The EU (reportedly) told them, directly, to hold off on implementing the change, and still, to this day, has not told them to implement the change, even after fining them for not doing so.
I know you doubt the story, but humor me for a moment and assume it’s true. Why should Apple ignore what the EC has directly told them? Honest question. If the EC told them “hold off on making that change” and never rescinded that request, what is Apple supposed to do?
And if that is indeed what happened, would you agree that it’s conceivable the EC was operating in bad faith?
Reportedly - as in “Emails” only Politico claims to have seen, and we don’t.
And Apple’s painting the situation does not make any sense and does not seem credible.
👉 Literally nothing would have prevented Apple from implementing it
And that’s what you do, when you’ve been given official warning - and want to avoid a fine.
Not rely on dubious “emails” to do the exact opposite - maintain your noncompliance - after having been officially cautioned.
It strains credulity.
Because they’ve received official preliminary finding of being non-compliant.
And the law is the law.
And Apple’s was undoubtedly advised by the best, most expensive legal professionals they could get.
What motive does Politico have in risking their reputation and making something up? And then, assuming they were risking their reputation to make something up, why did the EC not respond with “that’s ridiculous and those emails are fake and your sources are lying to you” when asked, but rather “a proposal doesn’t count unless it’s implemented.” You don’t think that’s odd at all?
The EC’s response all but confirms what Politico said happened happened.
So let me get this straight. When the government tells Apple, in writing, that they have to provide things “free of charge” Apple is supposed to take the broadest possible interpretation of “free of charge” and they are idiots asking to be fined for not doing what the EC says, despite other interpretations for that phrase existing.
But when the EC tells them specifically not implement a change, in writing (as Politico has seen the emails) they’re supposed to assume they can implement it anyway?
Do you see the disconnect here?
@surferfb
Look, I wouldn’t entirely rule it out that someone at the EU was OK with lulling Apple into a false sense of security.
Maybe for publicity maybe to send a statement and payback for Apple’s initial (deliberate) non-compliance and/or out of frustration over them dragging this out.
But I definitely do not believe that Apple wanted to comply (in time and good faith) to avoid that $500m fine.
Or that they got convinced (let alone pressured) into delaying these changes.
Neither do I believe that the EU issued any kind of “instruction” to hold off on implementing these changes.
Nobody’s literally lying here Apple, Politico and the Commission all have valid perspectives. The real issue is that U.S.-style “we negotiate then go to court” logic doesn’t map onto the EU’s administrative regime, where only the formal, published Decision binds and informal emails don’t pause your legal obligations.
1. On those “hold off” emails (@surferfb concern)
- Apple’s view: “We paused because the EC told us to wait.”
- EC’s view: “We never formally approved a pause; only our Decision under the DMA matters.”
Reality check: Under Implementing
Regulation 2023/814, Article 8(5), Apple had one week (extended to 11 July 2024 at its own request) to ask for more documents but it didn’t. It got same-day OneDrive access, a physical data room for two weeks, plus bonus docs from other cases. Informal “please wait” emails are just part of the consultation phase they’re not binding “stays” of the DMA’s clear “must-do-by” deadline
1. U.S. vs. EU enforcement culture: Why this matters
In the U.S. enforcement system as I understand it, agencies frequently negotiate compliance timelines or settlements before final rulings. Firms often wait for explicit regulator approval or judicial injunctions before implementing costly changes. Enforcement is adversarial and often “deal” driven.
In contrast, the EU administrative enforcement model expects gatekeepers to self-comply promptly and fully, without needing explicit blessings on informal proposals or drafts. The Commission’s silence or cautious responses during dialogue are normal and not evidence of bad faith or regulatory “stonewalling.”
2. Then why would Politico Still Feel Confident in Its Reporting?
- Their source is Apple, likely giving them internal correspondence showing Apple “offered” something and got no direct response.
- They’re not saying “Apple was right legally”, they’re saying “Apple believed it was misled” a subtle but journalistically safe stance.
- They’re working off a narrative structure: Apple builds compliance; Commission stays quiet; then drops the hammer. It reads like bureaucratic ambush.
- Politico thrives on process coverage: leaked letters, confidential talks, narrative spin less so on the black-and-white obligations of Article 5(4) DMA or Implementing Regulation 2023/814.
So their confidence doesn’t come from deep legal assessment. It comes from Having part of the internal communications, Knowing how to present a bureaucratic story arc And betting (rightly) that most readers don’t understand how EU enforcement actually work. Especially a U.S. audience( and likely themselves too)
So sadly Politico turned a procedural misunderstanding into a narrative of regulatory ambush, which resonates with an audience unfamiliar with EU administrative law.
So it’s not that someone is lying it’s that Apple interpreted EU procedure through the wrong legal lens, and Politico ran with the more dramatic version of that story, rather than interrogating the administrative framework behind it.
I thought Apple was supposed to listen to what the EU told them. The EU (reportedly) told them, directly, to hold off on implementing the change, and still, to this day, has not told them to implement the change, even after fining them for not doing so.
I know you doubt the story, but humor me for a moment and assume it’s true. Why should Apple ignore what the EC has directly told them? Honest question. If the EC told them “hold off on making that change” and never rescinded that request, what is Apple supposed to do?
And if that is indeed what happened, would you agree that it’s conceivable the EC was operating in bad faith?
There’s no legal regime EU, U.S., Martians where you need regulator approval to stop doing something illegal.
It’s like saying, “
I wanted to stop running red lights, but the police told me to wait for their feedback.”
Holding of on a potential feedback doesn’t detract from your still obligated to stop breaking the law as you wait…
