Apple's Latest App Store Changes Satisfy EU, No More Fines Coming

[Unregistered 4U]

I know we're on a site for rumors. But wouldn't it be better to wait for official confirmation?
It is rather unlikely that Apple will be allowed to continue charging fees for access to the iPhone. That would be contrary to free competition and would allow Apple to continue earning money out of thin air.

And once again to all Apple fans:
Just imagine if Microsoft and Google charged Apple a fee every time a user installed "iCloud for Windows" or "Music for Android" on their OS. It wouldn't come from an app store, but simply on principle.
When you think about what Apple wants money for right now, maybe your hatred of competition, fair markets, and the EU will cease.

To all apple fans, what if Microsoft and Google charged a fee every time a user installed software onto systems Apple fans don’t use. I’m fairly certain they don’t care. If Microsoft and Google get with Apple and cut a deal and that’s what the deal is, then, if Apple signed onto that, that’s Apple’s business. Literally.

As long as hundreds of companies already exist that charge for access to their consumer base (Microsoft is one of those, Google is one, too), then the challenge to only one of hundreds NOT doing that will always be weak.

 

[acgmph]

EU got scared of tariffs and backed off. It all hinges on trade at this point.

 

[Unregistered 4U]

Here's an article from Politico. Here's the key part:

According to correspondence seen by POLITICO, Apple offered last summer to drop its rules on how app developers can communicate with users, but was told by the Commission to hold off, pending feedback from developers.

By late September and following a round of consultations with Apple critics like Spotify, Match Group and Epic Games, executives at the U.S.-based firm began worrying that a lack of feedback from the Commission meant it was teeing up a potential fine and noncompliance decision.

You call telling Apple "don't implement that yet" and then fining Apple for, in part, for not implementing what they told Apple to not implement "operating in good faith"? What part of "declare iPadOS is a gatekeeper despite the fact that iPadOS doesn't meet the quantitative metrics written into the law to be a gatekeeper" is not "changing the rules"?

I'm defending a company pushing back against wrong-headed laws that already have made, and will continue to make, everyone's products worse. Especially when those laws were written by regulators who don't understand what they're doing, have a history of screwing up regulations around tech, and have frozen innovation in their jurisdiction with their regulations.

It's not just Apple saying it either. Meta, had this to say:

“Our constructive engagement – which pre-dated the launch of any investigation – was publicly noted by the Commission. Yet as 2024 progressed, the goalposts kept shifting and that has continued into 2025. We made proposals but feedback has often not been forthcoming. If feedback was received, it was often inconsistent and untethered from the DMA text. Meanwhile, despite the significant investment that we made to comply and address the Commission’s varying feedback, it kept repeating that it would never be in a position to bless DMA compliance proposals.

I’m becoming more and more certain that Vestager’s signature achievement is going to be whittled away, bit by bit. By the time it’s done, all it will have accomplished is to complicate the way developers deal with Apple in the EU vs the rest of the world. I’m sure part of the reason why they’re more or less going with what Apple has outlined is that they just want to avoid court challenges that may yield reversals (like when regulators went after Intel with no proof that Intel was doing what it was doing). The courts will show just how recklessly Vestager ran things when she was in power, antagonizing instead of working with companies.

 

[Dr Nobody Important]

I will force the developers of the applications to use the AppStore and In Application Payment through Apple rather than being directed to an external website without privacy protections.

 

[Dr Nobody Important]

So apps will be cheaper right? Right?

Nope, they will charge more or sell your data to make more money.

 

[Abazigal]

Tier one is 5%, but the devs have to report revenue? What if they just… don’t? Or if they report it much lower? It’s not going through Apple after all.

That’s why I felt a per-app install payment made more sense than a percentage cut, in the sense that it was easier to Apple to monitor and enforce. In your scenario, I suppose Apple could always sue to audit a developer’s books, though given the legal costs involved, they will likely save this for the larger businesses. If it’s just a few bucks here and there, Apple may elect to simply close one eye.

But the again, the saying “punish one to warn a hundred” exists for a reason.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

Here's an article from Politico. Here's the key part:

According to correspondence seen by POLITICO, Apple offered last summer to drop its rules on how app developers can communicate with users, but was told by the Commission to hold off, pending feedback from developers.

By late September and following a round of consultations with Apple critics like Spotify, Match Group and Epic Games, executives at the U.S.-based firm began worrying that a lack of feedback from the Commission meant it was teeing up a potential fine and noncompliance decision.

You call telling Apple "don't implement that yet" and then fining Apple for, in part, for not implementing what they told Apple to not implement "operating in good faith"? What part of "declare iPadOS is a gatekeeper despite the fact that iPadOS doesn't meet the quantitative metrics written into the law to be a gatekeeper" is not "changing the rules"?

I'm defending a company pushing back against wrong-headed laws that already have made, and will continue to make, everyone's products worse. Especially when those laws were written by regulators who don't understand what they're doing, have a history of screwing up regulations around tech, and have frozen innovation in their jurisdiction with their regulations.

It's not just Apple saying it either. Meta, had this to say:

“Our constructive engagement – which pre-dated the launch of any investigation – was publicly noted by the Commission. Yet as 2024 progressed, the goalposts kept shifting and that has continued into 2025. We made proposals but feedback has often not been forthcoming. If feedback was received, it was often inconsistent and untethered from the DMA text. Meanwhile, despite the significant investment that we made to comply and address the Commission’s varying feedback, it kept repeating that it would never be in a position to bless DMA compliance proposals.

Has been debunked countless times. You have the legal duty to do something irrespective of feedback before the deadline passes. And
as you perfectly highlighted 👇

Meanwhile, despite the significant investment that we made to comply and address the Commission’s varying feedback, it kept repeating that it would never be in a position to bless DMA compliance proposals.

Only implemented changes will be investigated, not suggestions that could as we’ll be written on a napkin.

 

[surferfb]

Has been debunked countless times.

No it hasn’t. In fact the quote from the EU in the article practically confirms it.

You have the legal duty to do something irrespective of feedback before the deadline passes. And
as you perfectly highlighted 👇

Only implemented changes will be investigated, not suggestions that could as we’ll be written on a napkin.

So they can change the rules and move the goalposts with plausible deniability. Absolute terrible and idiotic way to run an economy. No wonder innovation is dead in the EU!

EU defenders: “Apple should just do what the EU tells them to do. But not when it explicitly tells them not to do something. Then Apple should do the opposite.”

In what universe does that make any sense?!?!?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

I’m becoming more and more certain that Vestager’s signature achievement is going to be whittled away, bit by bit. By the time it’s done, all it will have accomplished is to complicate the way developers deal with Apple in the EU vs the rest of the world. I’m sure part of the reason why they’re more or less going with what Apple has outlined is that they just want to avoid court challenges that may yield reversals (like when regulators went after Intel with no proof that Intel was doing what it was doing). The courts will show just how recklessly Vestager ran things when she was in power, antagonizing instead of working with companies.

Incorrect they had evidence. And AMD filed the complaints in 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2007 that lead to the investigation, intel seems to just provide supporting counter evidence that made their actions not anti competitive

And the commission can’t do a ruling that isn’t challengable to the EU general court of the ECJ…. It’s kind of fundamental right

 

[djphat2000]

Has been debunked countless times. You have the legal duty to do something irrespective of feedback before the deadline passes. And
as you perfectly highlighted 👇

Only implemented changes will be investigated, not suggestions that could as we’ll be written on a napkin.

So do as we say, and fight it out afterwards, when you already committed to those changes?
Who do they think they are talking to? Europeans? These are American businesses. They all worked with the EU in good faith to comply. But, the rules are that they have to comply with whatever is stated, THEN try to work out another arrangement. Who in their right mind would do that?

 

[djphat2000]

No it hasn’t. In fact the quote from the EU in the article practically confirms it.


So they can change the rules and move the goalposts with plausible deniability. Absolute terrible and idiotic way to run an economy. No wonder innovation is dead in the EU!

EU defenders: “Apple should just do what the EU tells them to do. But not when it explicitly tells them not to do something. Then Apple should do the opposite.”

In what universe does that make any sense?!?!?

You beat me to it.
Wild!!!!!!!

 

[GrassShark]

EU defenders: “Apple should just do what the EU tells them to do. But not when it explicitly tells them not to do something. Then Apple should do the opposite.”

In what universe does that make any sense?!?!?

Things tend not to make sense when you specifically word them in a way that makes no sense. But in reality that's not actually what's happening, so it's all good.

 

[djphat2000]

but is Epic Games / Tim Sweeney satisfied ??

THAT is the question !!

If he's a smart man. He would take it and run. If he thinks he's going to get a better deal than what is currently looking like the framework going forward. He's dumber than dirt.

The best part of this is that he and anyone else that wants the first tier will not be highlighted on the AppStore. YOU the customer are going to have to dig for it. AND they all still have to pay. NO FREE RIDES!!!! 🤣

 

[djphat2000]

Things tend not to make sense when you specifically word them in a way that makes no sense. But in reality that's not actually what's happening, so it's all good.

I understood it exactly how he wrote it. 🤓

 

[surferfb]

Things tend not to make sense when you specifically word them in a way that makes no sense. But in reality that's not actually what's happening, so it's all good.

Do you have a source that has the EU refuting the Politico article? Because I haven’t seen it.

And if you don’t, what part of “the EU told them not to implement the change and then fined them for, in part, not implementing the change” is wrong and/or makes sense?

 

[Sophisticatednut]

No it hasn’t. In fact the quote from the EU in the article practically confirms it.


So they can change the rules and move the goalposts with plausible deniability. Absolute terrible and idiotic way to run an economy. No wonder innovation is dead in the EU!

EU defenders: “Apple should just do what the EU tells them to do. But not when it explicitly tells them not to do something. Then Apple should do the opposite.”

In what universe does that make any sense?!?!?

The mistake you’re making is systemic: you’re treating the Commission like a court and the DMA like a negotiation. It’s neither.

And Apple (or any company for that matter) has a legal duty under the DMA to implement compliant conduct by the deadline. That’s not conditional on Commission feedback, and certainly not suspended because of “consultations.” That duty doesn’t disappear because the Commission didn’t respond to a draft idea or because lobbying didn’t yield a green light. The burden is on the gatekeeper to implement compliant measures by the deadline. Doing nothing = non-compliance. End of story.

And the “goalpost” hasn’t moved when it’s literally written in black and white in the legal text of the DMA, adopted by the Parliament and Council. The Commission can’t just invent new rules; it must base enforcement on the regulations at hand. What it doesn’t do and isn’t supposed to do is rubber-stamp your ideas like your in-house legal team. The Commission is not a court, not your free legal counsel or teacher to spitball ideas with. It’s an administrative enforcement authority, it’s job is to enforce rules not to give pre-approval. If a company disagrees with its interpretation or decisions, there’s a legal path: bring it before the General Court (and eventually the ECJ).

That’s the proper institutional process in the EU legal system. So no, the quote from the article doesn’t prove your point. It shows that Meta and Apple expected the Commission to play a role it simply does not play under EU law. If you don’t implement compliance and just keep floating drafts the law treats that as non-compliance. And rightly so. So no, the goalposts haven’t shifted, and they were published in the Official Journal of the EU in 2022 for them to read.

If trillion-dollar companies failed to meet them on time, that’s a compliance failure not an indictment of the regulator. If you want legal predictability, there’s a court for that. If you want advisory feedback, hire counsel. But don’t confuse enforcement with improvisation or law with vibes. Companies of this size should know better. And if they don’t, that’s not the EU’s failure it’s theirs…

 

[surferfb]

The mistake you’re making is systemic: you’re treating the Commission like a court and the DMA like a negotiation. It’s neither.

And Apple (or any company for that matter) has a legal duty under the DMA to implement compliant conduct by the deadline. That’s not conditional on Commission feedback, and certainly not suspended because of “consultations.” That duty doesn’t disappear because the Commission didn’t respond to a draft idea or because lobbying didn’t yield a green light. The burden is on the gatekeeper to implement compliant measures by the deadline. Doing nothing = non-compliance. End of story.

And the “goalpost” hasn’t moved when it’s literally written in black and white in the legal text of the DMA, adopted by the Parliament and Council. The Commission can’t just invent new rules; it must base enforcement on the regulations at hand. What it doesn’t do and isn’t supposed to do is rubber-stamp your ideas like your in-house legal team. The Commission is not a court, not your free legal counsel or teacher to spitball ideas with. It’s an administrative enforcement authority, it’s job is to enforce rules not to give pre-approval. If a company disagrees with its interpretation or decisions, there’s a legal path: bring it before the General Court (and eventually the ECJ).

That’s the proper institutional process in the EU legal system. So no, the quote from the article doesn’t prove your point. It shows that Meta and Apple expected the Commission to play a role it simply does not play under EU law. If you don’t implement compliance and just keep floating drafts the law treats that as non-compliance. And rightly so. So no, the goalposts haven’t shifted, and they were published in the Official Journal of the EU in 2022 for them to read.

If trillion-dollar companies failed to meet them on time, that’s a compliance failure not an indictment of the regulator. If you want legal predictability, there’s a court for that. If you want advisory feedback, hire counsel. But don’t confuse enforcement with improvisation or law with vibes. Companies of this size should know better. And if they don’t, that’s not the EU’s failure it’s theirs…

The body charged with determining whether Apple is complying or not with the law they wrote literally TOLD THEM NOT TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING and then FINED THEM FOR NOT IMPLEMENTING IT. And their defense when asked by Politico was not a denial; not a “we’d never do such a thing” or even a “Apple must have misunderstood” but a concise regurgitation of your argument that they’re just calling balls and strikes. I think most reasonable people see that what it is: admission of guilt. (Remember, Politico saw the emails!)

And you’re here saying the EU is operating in good faith and not moving goalposts. That is absolutely absurd. You can’t hide behind “don’t listen to what we tell you” when you’re the one who arbitrarily decides whether or not Apple is complying or not.

If Apple had implemented it anyway, you’d be sitting here yelling “The EU told them not to do it, how much more clear could they be.”

And give me a break about the law being black and white. If the law were clear there would be none of this “spirit of the law” nonsense. The fact of the matter is the EU did a terrible job of drafting the law and are changing their interpretation of that law to try to fix their own screw up.

Remember, they couldn’t even write a quantitative definition of gatekeeper they liked and had to go after iPadOS by using a “oops, gatekeeper means what we says it does, not what the text of the law says” clause because iPadOS didn’t even meet the thresholds they picked. But sure, it’s black and white

 

[Sophisticatednut]

So do as we say, and fight it out afterwards, when you already committed to those changes?
Who do they think they are talking to? Europeans? These are American businesses. They all worked with the EU in good faith to comply.

No, stop breaking the law and implement a change YOU THINK IS ADEQUATE according to the findings the commission provided. if you disagree with both the finding and subsequent conclusion you can challenge either under the general court

“Good faith” means meeting the deadline with a functioning, implemented compliance measure not sending proposal drafts and expecting immunity. That’s not how legal obligations work in any sane legal jurisdiction.

These are binding rules of conduct, not negotiation invites. If Apple or Meta wants to operate in the EU, they comply with EU law, just as EU companies have to comply with U.S. law when operating there. “We’re American” is not a legal shield it’s jurisdictional nonsense. And you don’t get to say “maybe we’ll do it once we hear back”… you have a deadline and it will not move.

But, the rules are that they have to comply with whatever is stated, THEN try to work out another arrangement. Who in their right mind would do that?

That’s how enforcement works. You’re expected to act first based on the law and litigate after if you think the Commission misapplied it. The Commission isn’t a court, and it isn’t your legal consultant. It enforces obligations that are already written in binding legislation. If you wait for the Commission to pre-approve your plan, you’ve already missed the point and likely the deadline.

Honestly, if trillion-dollar firms don’t want to risk enforcement, they should read the law or stay out of regulated market…

 

[Jeeve Stubbs]

"Apple's Latest App Store Changes Satisfy EU".

That's the official reason.
The real reason, as everybody knows, is the fear of Trump retaliation. Crystal clear!

 

[surferfb]

No, stop breaking the law and implement a change YOU THINK IS ADEQUATE according to the findings the commission provided. if you disagree with both the finding and subsequent conclusion you can challenge either under the general court

You cannot have it both ways. Either Apple has to listen to the Commission or it doesn’t. Apple and its lawyers think it’s already complying. The EC is saying no, despite what the text law says, we interpret it differently. So you need to change how you’re complying (which Apple did, apparently successfully if Reuters is to be be believed, and is now suing to get the EC to stop overreaching - we’ll see if Apple’s interpretation is right or the EC’s is).

But then when the EC says “don’t do that” Apple is supposed to trust its interpretation of the law over the regulator who 1) already says “you’re wrong, we’re right” and 2) can decide Apple has to pay 20% of its global revenue as punishment? Don’t be absurd.

Remember, two companies are accusing the EC of moving the goalposts. Seems like an odd thing for two major companies to lie about. Why did they both decide to make that up? Especially when they’ll likely have to prove it in court. Why not just go with “demanding changes beyond our obligations under the law.”

“Good faith” means meeting the deadline with a functioning, implemented compliance measure not sending proposal drafts and expecting immunity. That’s not how legal obligations work in any sane legal jurisdiction.

When the judge of compliance already has extremely credible allegations of bad faith acting and deciding compliance is “whatever we feel like it is, not what is written in the law” 1) we’re not in a sane legal jurisdiction to begin with and 2) then the regulator should be obligated to help targeted companies read their minds.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

The body charged with determining whether Apple is complying or not with the law they wrote literally TOLD THEM NOT TO IMPLEMENT SOMETHING and then FINED THEM FOR NOT IMPLEMENTING IT. And their defense when asked by Politico was not a denial; not a “we’d never do such a thing” or even a “Apple must have misunderstood” but a concise regurgitation of your argument that they’re just calling balls and strikes. I think most reasonable people see that what it is: admission of guilt. (Remember, Politico saw the emails!)

Apple had a million other ways to implement something… the issue is Apple literally did nothing and chose to continue doing the already stated violation. Apple wasn’t fined for NOT IMPLEMENTING THEIR PROPOSAL, they where fined for 👉not implementing anything.👈

What is there to admit guilt for? The deadline wasn’t changed or moved. Apple sat there and did nothing as the timer ran out and is suprised pikachu face for being fined for not acting according to the finding and objections the commission made to them in official communication?

And you’re here saying the EU is operating in good faith and not moving goalposts. That is absolutely absurd. You can’t hide behind “don’t listen to what we tell you” when you’re the one who arbitrarily decides whether or not Apple is complying or not.

If Apple had implemented it anyway, you’d be sitting here yelling “The EU told them not to do it, how much more clear could they be.”

The rules Apple need to follow is contained within the EU codified law.
Don’t listen to what we tell you? At no point was Apple orders to continue to break the law. Apple have the rules and guidelines laid clearly:
1: fix the illegal behavior provided by the statement of objection in what they think is the best way.
2: before the deadline stop doing the illegal acts. By doing something else…

And give me a break about the law being black and white. If the law were clear there would be none of this “spirit of the law” nonsense. The fact of the matter is the EU did a terrible job of drafting the law and are changing their interpretation of that law to try to fix their own screw up.

Teleological Interpretation (Purpose-Based Reading)

This is core to EU law. Unlike the common law systems that prioritize literal or textual interpretation, the CJEU often interprets legal provisions in light of their purpose, as the spirit or objective of the legislation.
Example: When a directive or regulation is ambiguous, the CJEU looks to its recitals, legislative history, goals in the Treaty, and the overall system of EU law to interpret it.

“Spirit” = Purpose (Finalité)

The “spirit of the law” is not about vague morality or political whim. In EU law it usually refers to:

• Recitals of the legislation (they indicate purpose)
• Impact assessments and legislative history
• Proportionality and effectiveness whether an interpretation enables the rule to achieve its intended outcome
• The systematic coherence with other rules of EU law (internal market logic, fundamental freedoms, etc)

In Case C-58/08 Vodafone, the ECJ upheld EU roaming regulation even though it arguably interfered with national competence because the spirit was to create a functioning internal market for telecom, and that justified the interference( as with primary EU founding treaties)

Remember, they couldn’t even write a quantitative definition of gatekeeper they liked and had to go after iPadOS by using a “oops, gatekeeper means what we says it does, not what the text of the law says” clause because iPadOS didn’t even meet the thresholds they picked. But sure, it’s black and white

Spirit of the law is unrelated to the legal obligations that states you have to stop breaking the law. Apple have literally no basis. Even Meta understood that and implemented changes instead of doing nothing because it’s a guaranteed fine.

iPadOS was classified as a gatekeeper exactly as prescribed under the DMA. And the spirit of the law you can read in the preamble

1. An undertaking shall be designated as a gatekeeper if:

(a)	it has a significant impact on the internal market;

(b)	it provides a core platform service which is an important gateway for business users to reach end users; and

(c)	it enjoys an entrenched and durable position, in its operations, or it is foreseeable that it will enjoy such a position in the near future.

2. An undertaking shall be presumed to satisfy the respective requirements in paragraph 1:…


And as stated in the case for the iPadOS.
The Commission's investigation found that Apple presents the features of a gatekeeper in relation to iPadOS, as among others:

• Apple's business user numbers exceeded the quantitative threshold elevenfold, while its end user numbers were close to the threshold and are predicted to rise in the near future.
• End users are locked-in to iPadOS. Apple leverages its large ecosystem to disincentivise end users from switching to other operating systems for tablets.
• Business users are locked-in to iPadOS because of its large and commercially attractive user base, and its importance for certain use cases, such as gaming apps.

On the basis of the findings of the investigation, the Commission concluded that iPadOS constitutes an important gateway for business users to reach end users, and that Apple enjoys an entrenched and durable position with respect to iPadOS

 

[Sophisticatednut]

In EU law, especially under Regulations like the DMA, the Commission is:

• The primary enforcer
• The arbiter of compliance (subject to court review)
• And is empowered to impose proportionate penalties and binding decisions

You cannot have it both ways. Either Apple has to listen to the Commission or it doesn’t. Apple and its lawyers think it’s already complying. The EC is saying no, despite what the text law says, we interpret it differently. So you need to change how you’re complying (which Apple did, apparently successfully if Reuters is to be be believed, and is now suing to get the EC to stop overreaching - we’ll see if Apple’s interpretation is right or the EC’s is).

But then when the EC says “don’t do that” Apple is supposed to trust its interpretation of the law over the regulator who 1) already says “you’re wrong, we’re right” and 2) can decide Apple has to pay 20% of its global revenue as punishment? Don’t be absurd.

You’re conflating a few different things:

1. The Commission’s legal conclusion: Apple is not compliant under the DMA and must change its behavior by the deadline provided
2. The Commission’s administrative process: it may ask Apple to pause specific proposed implementation details (like communication methods) pending stakeholder feedback.
3. Apple is the one to decide the implementation they thinking adequate

But that does not suspend Apple’s overarching obligation to bring its conduct into compliance. If Apple is still restricting communications by March 7, that’s a violation regardless of ongoing consultations. Put simply the legal duty to comply is absolute and time bound, while the Commission’s feedback on remedy design is flexible and procedural. Waiting on the latter without achieving the former isn’t acceptable.

The pause only affects that one draft approach; it doesn’t suspend Apple’s overarching legal obligation to comply by the deadline. If Apple waited on that pause and missed the deadline, that’s on Apple.
And they can’t hide behind an informal “pause” on one draft and claim you’ve satisfied a hard legal deadline. The DMA doesn’t say “pause everything until we say so.”

The Statement of Objections is the formal chance to argue interpretation after you’ve implemented what they believe complies. The consultation pause on a PowerPoint sketch never changed that. So yes, you must act on the binding deadline, then if you still disagree, take the Commission’s formal decision to the General Court. That’s how administrative systems works.

And the 10–20% fines are not arbitrary threats; they are part of a graduated penalty regime, explicitly laid out in the DMA (Art. 30–31), and subject to judicial review by the General Court and CJEU.

Remember, two companies are accusing the EC of moving the goalposts. Seems like an odd thing for two major companies to lie about. Why did they both decide to make that up? Especially when they’ll likely have to prove it in court. Why not just go with “demanding changes beyond our obligations under the law.”

Accusations of “moving the goalposts” are empty unless backed with actual legal evidence. Simply asserting it without showing where the Commission allegedly contradicted itself doesn’t help anyone understand the issue. This is just their empty PR line, not a legal argument because it lacks substance. Companies claiming “goalpost-moving” when enforcement is stricter than expected. But the actual question before the court will be:

`Did the Commission stay within its margin of interpretation and discretion, given the goals and wording of the DMA?`​

That’s it. Public statements about ”unfairness” don’t matter unless substantiated with evidence of arbitrary treatment, procedural violation, or manifest error of assessment all of which are narrow and high thresholds under EU case law.

And legally, the Commission can’t just move the goalposts. If they made a demand with no legal basis (not grounded in the DMA’s text objectives, or established interpretation) the General Court would strike it down immediately. That’s how EU judicial review works. They’d get shredded for “manifest error of assessment” or abuse of discretion. In fact, we have the public Statement of Objections and official notices. Anyone can compare them with the Commission’s own explanations and press briefings and the legal position has been consistent throughout. What hasn’t been consistent is the narrative pushed by Apple and others in the press with what’s stated in their legal arguments.

When the judge of compliance already has extremely credible allegations of bad faith acting and deciding compliance is “whatever we feel like it is, not what is written in the law” 1) we’re not in a sane legal jurisdiction to begin with and 2) then the regulator should be obligated to help targeted companies read their minds.

You’re confusing the Commission’s regulatory authority with a U.S.-style adversarial model. The DMA like many EU Regulations the Commission isn’t just an enforcer, it’s the legally empowered interpreter of compliance. Companies must comply with binding decisions, even if they disagree. This isn’t a court, they aren’t judges.

And we have little evidence of bad faith acting outside of tragically hilarious flawed understanding of how EU works by Apple.

1: compliance is spelled out for them
2: everything is codified
3: no mind reading is required, provide a solution that meats the stated purpose and result.

 

[Sophisticatednut]

"Apple's Latest App Store Changes Satisfy EU".

That's the official reason.
The real reason, as everybody knows, is the fear of Trump retaliation. Crystal clear!

The European Commission is expected to approve the changes in the coming weeks, although the timing could still change, the people said.
"All options remain on the table. We are still assessing Apple's proposed changes," the EU watchdog said…

Seems very much not related.

 

[iPadified]

Vestager was adamant. In the first two major rulings after she was out,
1. They charged a fine 10 times less than the maximum Vestager forced to be in the law as an option, and
2. They allowed companies like Apple to ignore the deadline date and continue to work with no fines

Those two things were clear indications that the folks in charge now aren’t interested in political grandstanding, they just want to get something on the books.

Another view is that Vestager had enough integrity and was strong enough not to bow to large corporations. Too many politicians are too weak to take the fight that sometimes is necessary.

 

[iPadified]

I wonder why it matters so much for people living outside of EU what happens with Apple in EU. It does not affect you, does it?