Apple to appeal €500M digital fine over EU’s silence in compliance talks

Apple is preparing to appeal the European Commission’s €500 million fine for breaking the bloc’s digital rules, accusing the EU executive of spurning the firm’s efforts to comply with the law and resolving to impose a large fine months ahead of the official decision. 

It’s a showdown that will determine how far the Commission needs to hold companies’ hands toward compliance before issuing fines under the EU’s Digital Markets Act, which sets out rules for Big Tech companies operating on the European market.

Apple executives contend that the firm made a series of proposals to Brussels over the course of 2024 but was met with silence as to whether those proposals would put them on the right side of the law, according to correspondence seen by POLITICO.

In a public statement following last month's decision that Apple was in breach of the act over its rules on how developers can communicate with users, the company accused the Commission of shifting its requirements under the act.

“We have spent hundreds of thousands of engineering hours and made dozens of changes to comply with this law, none of which our users have asked for,” said Apple spokesperson Emma Wilson. “Despite countless meetings, the Commission continues to move the goal posts every step of the way.”

These public comments echo concerns the company raised directly with the Commission. 

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.

In an October 2024 letter sent to senior officials in DG Connect and DG Competition, and seen by POLITICO, an Apple executive complained that the Commission’s case teams had “made clear” that then-Commissioner Margrethe Vestager intended to issue a decision with a “potentially significant fine.”

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.