Case T-438/25: Action brought on 7 July 2025 – Apple v Commission
Date: 2025-07-07
Institutions: General Court
Subjects: advertising, competition law, digital economy, digital single market, electronic commerce, mobile application, provision of services, rights of the defence, sanction (EU), trade intermediary








C_202505215EN.000101.fmx.xml












Official Journal of the European Union


EN
C series













C/2025/5215


6.10.2025






Action brought on 7 July 2025 – Apple v Commission


(Case T-438/25)

(C/2025/5215)
Language of the case: English

Parties


Applicant: Apple Inc. (Cupertino, California, United States) (represented by: D. Beard, S. Love and B. Mitchell, Barristers-at-Law, S. Orton and R. Arnold, Solicitors, and W. Knibbeler, lawyer)

Defendant: European Commission

Form of order sought

The applicant claims that the Court should:






—


annul in full or in part the European Commission (Commission) Decision C(2025) 2090 final of 23 April 2025 in case DMA.100109 (1), pursuant to Articles 29(1), point (a), 30(1), point (a), and 31(1), point (h) of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act) (DMA) (2), (the decision);
or, in the alternative,










—


annul in full or in part Article 1 of the decision;










—


annul in full or in part Article 3 and Article 4 of the decision; and / or










—


annul or reduce the fine imposed on the Applicant pursuant to Article 2 of the decision;
and,










—


order the Commission to bear the Applicant’s costs pursuant to Article 134 of the Rules of Procedure of the General Court, including the costs relating to any intervening parties.





Pleas in law and main arguments

In support of the action, the applicant relies on five pleas in law.






1.


First plea in law, alleging that the Commission has misinterpreted and misapplied Article 5(4) of the DMA in the decision.










2.


Second plea in law, alleging that the decision errs in relation to the lawful scope of the cease and desist.










3.


Third plea in law, alleging that the Commission’s conduct prior to the imposition of the decision violates the Applicant’s rights of defence and to good administration.










4.


Fourth plea, alleging that the Commission has no legal basis to impose a fine on the Applicant.










5.


Fifth plea, alleging that the fine is erroneous and/or disproportionate in any event.






(1)  Commission Decision of 23 April 2025 relating to a decision pursuant to Articles 29(1), point (a), 30(1), point (a), and 31(1), point (h), of Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 (Case DMA.100109 – Apple – Online Intermediation Services – app stores – AppStore – Article 5(4)) (OJ C 2025/2090).

(2)  Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act) (OJ 2022 L 265, p.1).


ELI: http://data.europa.eu/eli/C/2025/5215/oj
ISSN 1977-091X (electronic edition)