Margrethe Vestager

Rule Changes

Leading EU antitrust enforcement against Apple

Apple controls what apps you can install, what features they can offer, and how much they cost. On January 8, 2026, the Ninth Circuit ruled that's perfectly legal—at least when it comes to shutting out a competitor's heart monitoring app. The decision caps a five-year battle with medical device maker AliveCor, which claimed Apple killed its SmartRhythm app by changing the Apple Watch heart rate algorithm in 2018. Judge Michelle Friedland held that Apple had no obligation to share its technology with rivals, invoking the rarely-successful refusal-to-deal defense. The same day, India doubled down on its right to impose antitrust penalties based on Apple's $380 billion global revenue, not just its Indian earnings, putting the company at risk of a $38 billion fine.

Updated May 19

Rule Changes

Shaped early DSA enforcement theory applied in the X case

On December 5, 2025, the European Commission issued its first non‑compliance decision under the Digital Services Act, fining X €120 million for misleading users with paid blue checkmarks, failing to provide a transparent advertising repository, and obstructing researcher access to public data. Regulators concluded the subscription-based 'verified' badge is deceptive because anyone can buy it without meaningful identity checks, and the platform's ad library and data-access rules prevent independent scrutiny of scams, influence operations, and systemic online risks.

Updated May 9