Apple has fired a stark warning shot at the UK’s competition watchdog, arguing that its proposed “EU-style rules” for the mobile market are “bad for users and bad for developers.” The tech giant claims the new regulations risk repeating the mistakes of Europe’s Digital Markets Act (DMA).
The company contends that the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) plans will inevitably lead to delays for new features, undermine user security, and stifle the very innovation the regulator claims to be promoting.
This public rebuke escalates a simmering conflict over how to manage the power of Big Tech, placing the UK’s regulatory ambitions on a direct collision course with Silicon Valley and a protectionist US administration.
Apple Warns of Security Risks and Stifled Innovation
At the heart of Apple’s opposition are specific proposals from the UK regulator that would mandate greater “interoperability” and allow developers to “steer” users to payment systems outside of its App Store. Apple argues these are not minor tweaks but fundamental threats to its integrated ecosystem, which it has spent decades building around user privacy and security.
The demand for interoperability would require Apple to grant rival services deeper access to its mobile technology, such as digital wallets and smartwatches. From Apple’s perspective, this is a forced giveaway of its proprietary technology and intellectual property, which it claims would benefit foreign competitors at the expense of its own innovation.
To bolster its case, Apple points to its recent, and fraught, experience with the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA). The company claims that under similar European interoperability rules, it has already received over 100 requests from other firms—including major tech rivals—demanding access to sensitive user data, some of which even Apple itself cannot access by design.
The second major point of contention is the proposal to allow developers to “steer” users to third-party payment systems. Apple argues this would dismantle the secure, vetted App Store payment process, opening the door to scams, fraud, and privacy violations. It contends that bypassing its system removes a critical layer of consumer protection, leaving users vulnerable.
In a detailed statement summarizing its position, the company warned that “the CMA’s approach undermines the privacy and security protections our users have come to expect, hampers our ability to innovate, and forces us to give away our technology for free to foreign competitors.” This highlights the multi-faceted nature of Apple’s defense, framing the issue as a threat to users, its business, and its core principles.
The company’s security argument centers on the tight integration of its hardware and software. Features like end-to-end encrypted messaging and the secure enclave for biometric data are, it argues, only possible within a controlled “walled garden.” Mandating third-party access, it claims, would inevitably create new attack vectors for malware and bad actors, degrading the security promises central to its brand.
CMA Rejects ‘EU-Style’ Label, Defends UK-Specific Approach
The CMA, however, has firmly rejected Apple’s characterization of its plans, countering that intervention is necessary to correct a deeply entrenched market imbalance. The regulator’s action follows a comprehensive market study which concluded that Apple and Google hold an “effective duopoly”, with a staggering 90-100% of UK mobile devices running on their operating systems. This concentration of power, the CMA argues, stifles competition and limits choice for consumers and developers alike.
The UK watchdog’s newfound confidence stems from the recently enacted Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers (DMCC) Act. This landmark legislation is a cornerstone of the UK’s post-Brexit regulatory strategy, granting the CMA powerful tools to govern Big Tech. A key provision allows the authority’s Digital Markets Unit to designate firms with ‘Strategic Market Status’ (SMS), a formal label that unlocks the power to impose targeted and bespoke interventions to correct specific anti-competitive behaviors.
This bespoke approach is central to the CMA’s defense against Apple’s “EU-style” accusations. The authority insists its framework is “fundamentally different” from the EU’s broad-stroke Digital Markets Act, which applies a uniform set of rules to all designated “gatekeepers.” In contrast, the CMA argues it is focusing on particular aspects of Apple’s technology, such as digital wallets and watches, to create specific interoperability opportunities for UK developers to build innovative new apps.
The regulator frames its intervention not as a punitive measure, but as a pro-growth strategy for the UK’s digital economy. In a statement to the BBC, a spokesperson said the UK rules “are designed to help UK businesses, including our thriving app developer economy, innovate and grow while ensuring UK consumers don’t miss out on innovation being introduced in other countries.” The goal is to level the playing field, allowing smaller British firms to compete more effectively with the global tech giants.
Addressing Apple’s security warnings directly, the CMA maintains that it can achieve its aims without compromising core user protections. The agency has been clear that fostering competition does not require a trade-off with safety. “Driving greater competition on mobile platforms need not undermine privacy, security or intellectual property, and as we carefully consider UK-specific steps, we will ensure it does not,” the agency stated. With the consultation period now closed, the CMA is reviewing feedback from all parties and has confirmed a final decision on the matter is expected in October.
A New Front in Transatlantic Tech Competition
This high-stakes regulatory clash is not occurring in a vacuum. It is unfolding against a tense geopolitical backdrop, representing a new and critical front in a wider transatlantic battle over digital sovereignty. The dispute has already had tangible economic consequences, with a major EU-US trade deal reportedly stalling specifically because the Trump administration views Europe’s digital rulebooks as unfair “non-tariff barriers” targeting American firms.
The core of the Trump administration’s position is that these European and UK regulations are a form of thinly veiled protectionism. Washington argues they are structured to disproportionately target the most successful American tech companies, creating excessive compliance costs that stifle innovation. This view has been amplified by senior officials, who have framed laws like the EU’s Digital Services Act as a form of censorship designed to stifle free speech, adding an ideological dimension to the economic dispute.
The conflict escalated dramatically this week when US President Donald Trump personally intervened. In a fiery online post, he attacked international tech regulations he claimed are “designed to harm, or discriminate against, American Technology.” He explicitly put countries with such rules “on notice” for their so-called “discriminatory actions.”
Trump’s rhetoric was backed by concrete threats. He demanded that nations “show respect to America and our amazing Tech Companies or, consider the consequences!”, warning that failure to remove the offending rules would result in “substantial” new tariffs. More alarmingly, he threatened to leverage US dominance in the semiconductor industry by instituting export restrictions on “Highly Protected Technology and Chips,” a move that could severely impact European industries far beyond tech.
This follows earlier reports that Washington is considering an even more drastic step: imposing sanctions, such as visa bans, on individual European officials responsible for implementing these tech laws. The potential use of sanctions against officials from a key ally marks a significant and rare escalation in trade disputes, signaling the administration’s serious intent to protect its tech sector from foreign regulation.
The CMA’s action against Apple is not an isolated event but a key part of a broader, multi-front UK strategy to rein in Big Tech. The regulator is simultaneously pursuing a major intervention against Google’s search monopoly and has recommended a formal probe into the dominance of Amazon and Microsoft in the cloud computing market, demonstrating a comprehensive and determined approach to reshaping its digital landscape.
