The European Commission’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) reached a new enforcement milestone on April 23, 2025, when Apple was f🗹ined ꦇ€500 million for failing to comply with key DMA obligations, particularly Article 5(4) regarding anti-steering provisions.

The EU’s latest action underscores both the Commission’s willingness to use its regulatory muscle and the shifting landscape for gatekeeper platforms operating in the EU, as reported by PYMNTS.

Regulatory Showdown: Apple and the Anti-Steering Rule

The impetus for this significant penalty lies in Apple’s treatment of app developers within its App Store ecosystem. The DMA, introduced to curb monopolistic behaviors and foster competitiveness, forbids gatekeeper platforms from preventing business users—such as app publishers—from steering their users to alternative purchasing options outside the platform. According to the European Commission’s official decision, Apple “imposed restrictions that prevent app developers from informing consumers about offers that are available outside A🌸pple’s App Store,” directly contravening Article 5(4) of the DMA. The Commission ordered Apple to not only pay the fine but also to immediately remove such restrictions.

Apple, for its part, responded forcefully. In a statement to CNBC, the company characterized the Commission’s decision as “unfairly targeting Apple in a series of decisions that are bad for the privacy and security of our users, bad for products, and force us to give away our technology for free,” PYMNTS reports. The dispute encapsulates the broader friction bꦺetween Big Tech’s established business models and the EU’s regulatory ambitions.

Legal Standards and the Gatekeeper Burden of Proof

At the heart of the DMA’s enforcement mechanism is a notable presumption: the burden of proof for demonstrating compliance lies primarily wiꦓth the designated gatekeeper—in this case, Apple. As the law firm Hausfeld’s March 2025 bulletin notes, Article 8(1) of the DMA mirrors the GDPR’s accountability principle, ensuring that gatekeepers carry the responsibility for proving adherence, whether in public enforcement actions or private litigation. The European Court of Justice has interpreted this principle broadly, applying it to both damages actions and𒊎 regulatory proceedings.

For plaintiffs seeking damages, the process divides into two parts: first, demonstrating the direct injury caused by the gatekeeper’s conduct, and second, quantifying the resulting harm. The latter task typically involves a relaxed standard of proof, reflecting the high e🌳videntiary barriers often 🐽present in platform competition cases. Hausfeld’s analysis emphasizes that this dual-stage process is designed to lower access barriers for injured parties and facilitate redress.

Jurisdictional Reach and Risk for Gatekeepers

The DMA’s direct applicability across EU Member States means that both national courts and private actors are empowered to bring claims once a gatekeeper’s designation becomes final, a𝓀s explained by Quinn Emanuel in its October 2024 update. Jurisdiction hinges either on the location of the gatekeeper’s EU-registered office🐷 or where the harmful event occurred. Notably, the Commission’s decision—such as the Apple case—automatically triggers the potential for national enforcement and private follow-on actions. This extroverted approach increases the litigation and compliance risks for affected platforms, making regulatory outcomes in Brussels the starting point for a cascade of claims across the continent.

The Commission’s application of the DMA is also reflective of case law surroundin🅷g competition damages, including precedents like *CDC Hydrogen Peroxide* and *FlyLAL*, which give aggrieved parties broad leeway to pursue claims in jurisdictions where damage manifests. This further widens the exposure for platforms, even those headq⛦uartered outside the EU, as they may face litigation in several markets simultaneously.

Strategic Consequences and the Path Forward

With the DMA’s enforcement architecture now battle-tested against major tech incumbents, comꦆpanies like Apple face not only direct regulatory sanctions but also the real prospect of follow-on private litigation. The European Commission has signaled that large-scale fines are a feature, not a bug—an approach designed to break persistent platform lock-in and reshape digital market dynamics. As Hausfeld stresses, enforcement “should apply to both public and private actions,” ensuring that the accoun🍌tability principle transcends regulatory proceedings and extends into the courts.

For the digital sector, these developments mark a new era of legal accountability and proactive compliance obligations. The Apple fine, joined by simultaneous action against Meta, signals an uncompromising interpretation of the DMA’s gatekeeper duties. As national courts and private litigants absorb and apply theseღ regulatory benchmarks, the pressure on digital platform giants to adapt—structurally and strategically—will only intensify. The era of self-policing for the world’s leading tech firms in Europe is, decis♊ively, over.