One of the most effective defenses against market monopolies is interoperability – the ability for new products and services to seamlessly integrate with existing ones. This empowers users to choose the applications that best serve their needs, rather than being confined by device manufacturers or dominant market players. Unsurprisingly, companies like **Apple** have actively resisted such interoperability mandates. On July 8, the **General Court of the European Union** (**General Court**) ruled against **Apple** in several cases the company brought against the **European Commission**, affirming its obligations under the **Digital Markets Act** (**DMA**). **Apple** had argued for exemption from the law's requirements, particularly regarding interoperability, on multiple grounds. This decision is a significant win for fair competition, with organizations like the **Free Software Foundation Europe** (**FSFE**) having intervened in support of the Commission. ## A Positive Development for Europeans This ruling represents a clear and substantial victory for developers and users across Europe. **Apple**'s stringent control over its 'walled garden' has long been detrimental to developers, users, and researchers alike. By confirming **Apple**'s obligations under the **DMA**, the **General Court** has ensured that developers will have more avenues to publish their apps, and users will gain greater choice in obtaining applications that **Apple** might otherwise restrict. Furthermore, researchers will encounter fewer obstacles in their studies of **Apple**'s operating systems, including **iOS**, **iPadOS**, and **watchOS**. **Apple** contends that interoperability requirements will force a reduction in the security standards that have fostered user trust in its products. While this self-serving argument holds some merit, it is far from an inevitable outcome. Especially concerning the **App Store**, users can be provided with clear, informed choices when opting to acquire apps from outside the **Apple** ecosystem. While European courts should take **Apple**'s security concerns seriously, this should not serve as a smokescreen to protect anti-competitive behavior. Interoperability and security are not inherently conflicting. When interoperable functionality is integrated into a platform's security model from the outset, a proper balance can be achieved between these often falsely framed opposing forces. While **Apple**'s OS platforms were not initially built with this in mind, it remains achievable, though it requires more time to implement correctly. The success lies in the details of the implementation. ## Apple's Case Arguments and the Court's Rebuttal Under the **DMA**, the designation of 'gatekeeper' is reserved for the largest tech companies that provide services deemed essential for businesses to reach end-users. **Apple** is one of only seven companies to receive this designation, alongside **Alphabet**, **Amazon**, **Booking**, **ByteDance**, **Meta**, and **Microsoft**. **Apple** argued that Article 6(7) of the **DMA**, which specifies interoperability requirements for gatekeepers to restore fair competition, is unlawful under the **Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union** (specifically the right to property). Consequently, it contended that its designation as a gatekeeper subject to these requirements should be annulled. The **General Court** rejected this argument, stating that Article 6(7) does not form the legal basis of the designation. **Apple** separately argued that the **App Store** does not meet the criteria defining a core platform service (**CPS**), asserting that the various stores (across **iOS**, **iPadOS**, **watchOS**, **macOS**) do not constitute a single platform. A company's gatekeeper status hinges on its provision of a **CPS** that acts as an important gateway for business users to reach end-users. The implication of this argument was clear: remove the service designation as **CPSes**, and remove the gatekeeper status. The court rejected this argument on the basis that "irrespective of the device on which it was available, each of the App Stores was used for the same purpose, namely to intermediate between end users and business users in the distribution of applications and in-app digital content." Finally, the court deemed inadmissible **Apple**'s argument that **iMessage** should not be classified as a number-independent interpersonal communication service (**NIICS**) constituting a **CPS**. This decision was based on the fact that the "classification does not, by itself, produce binding legal effects that bring about a change in **Apple**'s legal position" since **iMessage** was not listed as an "important gateway" in the designation decision and therefore was not subject to the **DMA** obligations. By ruling against **Apple** and in favor of the **European Commission**, the **General Court** has established a vital precedent for ensuring competitive fairness and openness in the digital marketplace. The landmark impact of the **DMA** will benefit all Europeans by providing greater choice and freedom. Despite legal challenges from Big Tech, these decisions lay a strong foundation for a more equitable digital future—a lesson that other regions should observe and learn from.