Apple Appeals EU's March Ruling on 'Interoperability' Requirements Under the DMA

Monday, 2 June 2025

Benjamin Mayo, writing at 9to5Mac:

Apple has appealed parts of the Digital Markets Act law citing user privacy concerns. Specifically, Apple is contesting the interoperability requirements that say data like notification content and WiFi networks should be made available to third-parties.

Apple says the DMA as written allows others to “access personal information that even Apple doesn’t see”. This is because features like notification rendering and WiFi network data are currently handled on-device and stored in an encrypted fashion, so Apple cannot see that stuff. However, the DMA does not necessarily require third-party agents who would be able to access this same data to commit to the same standards of privacy and security.

Here’s Apple’s latest statement on the matter, in full:

At Apple, we design our technology to work seamlessly together, so it can deliver the unique experience our users love and expect from our products. The EU’s interoperability requirements threaten that foundation, while creating a process that is unreasonable, costly, and stifles innovation. These requirements will also hand data-hungry companies sensitive information, which poses massive privacy and security risks to our EU users. Companies have already requested our users’ most sensitive data — from the content of their notifications, to a full history of every stored WiFi network on their device — giving them the ability to access personal information that even Apple doesn’t see. In the end, these deeply flawed rules that only target Apple — and no other company — will severely limit our ability to deliver innovative products and features to Europe, leading to an inferior user experience for our European customers. We are appealing these decisions on their behalf, and in order to preserve the high-quality experience our European customers expect.

Apple’s full statement is worth reading closely. Specifically, this sentence jumped out to me: “In the end, these deeply flawed rules that only target Apple — and no other company — will severely limit our ability to deliver innovative products and features to Europe, leading to an inferior user experience for our European customers.” The Wall Journal’s story on the appeal, for example, didn’t include that portion of Apple’s statement. But that’s the part that explains what’s going to happen if the EU upholds these “interoperability” requirements, which are intended to require Apple to give away its own intellectual property as though Apple were a public utility. To cite just one example, the Commission’s March ruling requires Apple to make AirDrop available to third-party devices, as though AirDrop is an open standard. (It also requires Apple to allow AirDrop to be replaced on iOS devices, like an interchangeable component, with third-party file sharing software.)

When you think about it, this is nothing like the EU’s recent-ish mandate that most electronic devices must support USB-C ports for charging. I still think that law was unnecessary — the market forces had worked, and the whole world had either already moved (like iPads did starting in 2018) or was on the cusp of moving to USB-C (like iPhones). But at least requiring the inclusion of USB-C for charging is actual open interoperability. USB comes from a legitimate industry consortium. Same thing with the Chinese government seemingly forcing Apple’s hand to adopt RCS in order to get the necessary certifications for 5G cellular networking in China — RCS is an industry standard protocol. Mandating the inclusion of a standardized port or standardized protocol is the sort of thing government regulatory bodies do. That’s very different from requiring Apple to open up Lightning or iMessage for other companies to use as though they’re open standards.

The EC’s March mandate basically says that third-party devices must be permitted to do everything Apple’s own devices do when it comes to communicating or interoperating with iPhones and iPads, even if that requires allowing those third-party companies to install and run system-level background processes with broad privileges on iOS. In fact, as Mayo alludes to above, in order to have the same capabilities as Apple’s own devices do, third-party system software extensions might need broader privileges.

I’ve long seen that there are two ways Apple can comply with this mandate, if the EU court declines Apple’s appeal. The first is what most people are thinking, and surely what the European Commission’s bureaucrats are thinking: that Apple will somehow make all third-party devices as capable as Apple’s own when it comes to pairing with and communicating with iPhones and iPads. (And that when Apple is set to unveil new devices, they’ll share the details with third parties in advance so they can do the same things.) The second, though, is that Apple will limit its own devices in the EU and only in the EU to the same features available to third-party devices through open standards like Bluetooth. New features and entire devices will either come late, or never, to the EU. We’re already seeing that with iPhone Mirroring — perhaps the single best feature Apple announced (and actually shipped) last year. I use iPhone Mirroring every day while I’m working. We’re one week out from WWDC 2025 and iPhone Mirroring still isn’t available in the EU. I think it’s very clear that under the EC’s current DMA “interoperability” mandate, Apple would be required to somehow make it work with third-party devices and PCs. If AirDrop were brand new, users in the EU wouldn’t get that either, I suspect. And if this mandate holds up, EU users might lose AirDrop. The same is true of entire devices like AirPods and Apple Watch.

Apple’s statement doesn’t say that complying with these breathtaking demands will adversely affect their customers around the world. They’re saying it will lead “to an inferior user experience for our European customers”. Mandating that the public has to be allowed to use the same doorways as a (say) hotel’s own staff doesn’t mean those existing doors will be opened to everyone. It could lead to those doors being closed to everyone. And all of a sudden no one staying at the hotel is getting food from the kitchen.