Cupertino asks the European Commission to scrap the Digital Markets Act, arguing it harms innovation and user security, as Brussels weighs the rule’s future.

Apple has called on the European Union to scrap the bloc’s landmark Digital Markets Act (DMA), a sweeping law that targets the market power of large online platforms. In submissions to the European Commission, and in public statements on Thursday, the iPhone maker argued that the rulebook is producing a worse experience for EU consumers, delaying feature rollouts, and introducing new security and privacy risks. The demand marks a sharp escalation in the years-long standoff between US tech giants and Brussels over how to police digital markets.

The appeal arrives as the Commission opens a formal review of the DMA’s first phase in force. Apple’s tone is notably more confrontational than previous filings and comes only months after Brussels fined the company €500 million for breaching the law’s anti‑steering provisions—finding that Apple restricted how app developers could inform users about cheaper offers outside its own payment system. Apple has appealed the fine and says the Commission is ‘redesigning’ its products through enforcement rather than fostering fair competition.

At the core of Apple’s argument is a claim that DMA obligations have already impaired the functionality of its devices for European users. The company says it delayed or curtailed features including iPhone Mirroring on the Mac, Live Translation with AirPods, and certain location‑based capabilities in Maps. It also contends that the DMA’s requirements around sideloading and alternative app marketplaces—meant to open iOS to rivals—raise the likelihood of malware, scams, and data exfiltration. Apple says proposals it made to mitigate those risks were rejected by regulators, leaving consumers less protected than their counterparts elsewhere.

Brussels disputes this narrative. EU officials insist the DMA’s purpose is to restore competition in digital markets by curbing self‑preferencing, forcing interoperability where gatekeepers control critical interfaces, and preventing incumbents from locking in users and developers. In their view, if some features are delayed, it is because dominant platforms must first ensure that new services do not entrench that dominance or sidestep the law’s obligations. The Commission, which can levy penalties of up to 10% of a company’s global turnover for violations—and 20% for repeat offenders—has said compliance is not optional.

The DMA, proposed in 2020 and entered into force in 2022 with obligations phased in from 2023, labels a handful of the world’s largest tech companies as ‘gatekeepers’ across services such as app stores, mobile operating systems, and online advertising. For Apple, the gatekeeper designation attached to iOS, the App Store, and Safari carries duties that include allowing app developers to steer users to external payment options, enabling alternative app distribution, and ensuring certain forms of interoperability with third‑party hardware and software. Critics of the law argue these labels are blunt instruments applied to evolving technologies; supporters counter that only fixed, bright‑line duties can neutralize entrenched market power.

What makes Apple’s latest move stand out is its scope. Rather than asking for tweaks or more time, the company is urging the Commission to repeal the statute or strip out key sections. People close to the deliberations say Apple’s submission frames the DMA as an industrial policy that advantages other Big Tech rivals and European champions at the expense of integrated, privacy‑centric designs. In parallel, Apple warns that if the current reading of the law continues, some products and services may no longer be viable in the EU market.

The stakes are high for both sides. For Brussels, the DMA is the crown jewel of a new digital regulatory model that the bloc hopes will become a global template—much as the GDPR did for privacy. Retreating now would undermine years of legislative work and could embolden other gatekeepers to push for carve‑outs. For Apple, Europe represents a lucrative market and a proving ground for premium services—from tap‑to‑pay and subscriptions to health and language‑AI features that rely on tight hardware‑software integration. Re‑architecting those services for one region can be costly, and changes made for Europe often spill into global product decisions.

Beyond the legal fight, the war of narratives has intensified. Apple’s public messaging casts the DMA as a security hazard: opening iOS to alternative app stores and expanded device access could, in its telling, weaken the perimeter‑defense model that has kept iPhone malware rates low. Cyber‑security researchers are split. Some say vetted alternative stores can coexist with strong security baselines; others warn that any expansion of software supply chains increases the attack surface, particularly if user consent prompts are rushed or over‑used.

Developers and consumer groups have their own grievances. Indie developers argue that Apple’s DMA‑era rule changes still extract rent through new fees and technical hoops that make alternative distribution channels less attractive in practice than on paper. Large subscription services, meanwhile, welcome the law’s anti‑steering mandate, which allows them to present off‑platform pricing more clearly. Consumer advocates say more choice is the point—and that short‑term friction is a reasonable trade‑off if it breaks app store monopolies and reduces prices over time.

The geopolitical backdrop adds heat. Washington and Brussels have sparred over whether EU tech rules unfairly target US champions. President Donald Trump has threatened retaliatory tariffs against countries he says discriminate against American firms, while US lawmakers—divided among themselves on tech policy—have nevertheless rallied around domestic companies when foreign regulators bite. European officials counter that US enforcers are increasingly aligned with anti‑monopoly objectives and that the DMA addresses market failures regardless of corporate nationality.

Inside the Berlaymont, officials are preparing for a DMA ‘fitness check’ that will tally early results: Are users seeing more choice and lower prices? Are developers gaining credible routes to market beyond the incumbent app stores? And do interoperability requirements actually spur innovation, or are they slowing product pipelines? Apple’s bid for repeal may set a high‑water mark for pushback, but the Commission’s immediate options are narrower: accelerate open investigations, refine guidance, or propose targeted amendments next year. Wholesale repeal would require an act of the Parliament and Council—politically implausible absent a major shift in sentiment across member states.

For now, Apple is pressing its practical case. It points to concrete delays: cross‑device iPhone Mirroring for Macs; Live Translation features on AirPods that depend on deep device access; and region‑specific Maps functions that intensify location data flows. Some engineers say that DMA compliance work has redirected head count from feature development. But rivals counter that Apple has used regulatory compliance as a pretext to fence off its ecosystem, and note that other handset makers face comparable obligations without threatening to pull products.

The coming months will test whether the DMA’s enforcement can evolve without sacrificing its teeth. One path would blend hard obligations with more formalized, security‑focused exemptions—granted only where companies demonstrate, with technical evidence, that an obligation materially elevates risk. Another is to double down on the current approach, accepting short‑term disruption for long‑term market opening. Either way, Apple’s call for repeal ensures the debate will be political as much as technical, pitting a narrative of consumer protection and sovereignty against one of security, innovation, and design integrity.

What to watch: the EU’s next enforcement milestones under the DMA, Apple’s appeal of the €500 million fine, the fate of alternative app marketplaces on iOS, and whether Brussels moves to codify more interoperability across devices and accessories. If negotiations turn frosty, collateral damage could hit supply chains, software roadmaps, and—ironically—the very users both sides say they want to protect.

Reporting notes: This article draws on Apple’s public statements and submissions to the European Commission, as well as contemporaneous reporting by major outlets and the Commission’s enforcement notices.