Law & Court Decisions — 2026-07-13
Apple lost a major challenge against EU Digital Markets Act rules this week, marking a significant defeat for Big Tech's resistance to European regulation. Meanwhile, the DOJ seeks en banc review of a Sixth Circuit decision blocking access to Michigan's voter file, and a Florida transgender care lawsuit advances after appellate intervention. --> <!-- headline -->Apple's EU Loss Signals Tech Giants Face Losing Antitrust War<!-- /headline -->
Law & Court Decisions — 2026-07-13
Apple lost a major challenge against EU Digital Markets Act rules this week, marking a significant defeat for Big Tech's resistance to European regulation. Meanwhile, the DOJ seeks en banc review of a Sixth Circuit decision blocking access to Michigan's voter file, and a Florida transgender care lawsuit advances after appellate intervention. -->
Supreme Court & Federal Courts
Apple v. European Commission — EU Court of Justice
- Holding: Apple's challenges to the EU's Digital Markets Act (DMA) rules were rejected; the company must comply with interoperability and competition obligations.
- Vote / posture: Full appellate review; court upheld lower rulings
- Why it matters: Establishes that major tech platforms cannot successfully challenge the DMA's core enforcement mechanisms in court. Apple and other gatekeepers now face binding obligations to open APIs, allow sideloading, and modify business practices across the EU market.

United States v. State of Michigan (Voter File Access) — Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals
- Holding: DOJ's bid to obtain Michigan's unredacted voter file under the 1960 Civil Rights Act was dismissed; the court ruled voter registration files do not fall under that statute.
- Vote / posture: 2-1 panel decision; DOJ filed petition for en banc review on 2026-07-08
- Why it matters: If DOJ's en banc petition succeeds, it could overturn the panel's reading of the Civil Rights Act and allow federal access to sensitive state voter data for election law enforcement. The split reflects judicial disagreement over federal-state election authority.
Florida AG v. Gender-Affirming Care Provider Group — Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
- Holding: Full Seventh Circuit panel stayed a federal judge's June order blocking Florida's lawsuit over transgender youth medical care, allowing the litigation to proceed.
- Vote / posture: En banc stay; overruled prior three-judge panel
- Why it matters: Clears the path for states to sue medical groups and advocacy organizations over gender-affirming care protocols. Sets a procedural precedent for state enforcement authority in healthcare policy disputes.
Tech Antitrust & Regulatory Battles
Apple vs. EU Digital Markets Act Compliance Requirements — European Commission
- What happened this week: Apple lost its legal challenge to DMA rules requiring interoperability and sideloading. The court upheld the Commission's authority to enforce gatekeeper obligations.
- Stakes: Apple must now open its ecosystem to third-party app stores and payment systems. Non-compliance carries fines up to 10% of global revenue.
- Status: Compliance deadline approaching March 6, 2027; Apple exploring technical workarounds but facing strict EU oversight.

Amazon & Microsoft Cloud Services Investigation — European Commission (DMA Enforcement)
- What happened this week: EU regulators announced they are investigating whether Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure should be designated as "gatekeepers" under DMA rules.
- Stakes: If designated, cloud providers would face interoperability mandates and restrictions on combining cloud with other services. Could reshape cloud market competition.
- Status: Ongoing investigation; designation decision expected in coming months.
Google Antitrust Fine — European Commission
- What happened this week: Commission's prior €2.95 billion fine against Google for anti-competitive ad tech practices remains under appeal; no new developments this week but underscores escalating EU enforcement.
- Stakes: Sets precedent for attacking Big Tech's ad infrastructure globally; U.S. and other jurisdictions monitoring for similar models.
- Status: Google appeal pending; fine upheld as of latest reporting.
Other Notable Rulings & Enforcement
-
State Attorneys General Increase Antitrust Enforcement: Multiple state AGs are stepping up Big Tech enforcement alongside federal agencies, including litigation against Live Nation and other gatekeepers. State coordination with DOJ/FTC continues to yield wins even when federal settlement occurs.
-
Fifth Circuit Most Reversed by Supreme Court Again: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit was again the most-reversed appellate court by SCOTUS this term—the third consecutive year holding that distinction. Reflects ongoing ideological divides and circuit court splits on constitutional questions.
Case of the Week — Deep Dive
Apple loses its fight against the EU's Digital Markets Act enforcement
Apple's defeat in the EU courts this week signals a turning point in the global antitrust battle. For years, the company has pushed back against the DMA's requirements to open its ecosystem to third-party app stores, alternative payment systems, and interoperable messaging. On July 8, 2026, the EU court system rejected Apple's legal challenge, leaving no appellate remedy and forcing compliance.
The DMA, adopted in 2024 and enforced since March 2025, designates Apple as a "gatekeeper" platform whose control over iOS threatens competition. Apple argued the rules violated its intellectual property rights and exceeded EU regulatory authority. The court disagreed, finding the Commission acted within its competition enforcement mandate and that gatekeeper designation—based on market size, control over infrastructure, and lock-in effects—is proportionate.
What this means: Apple now must allow sideloading of apps and permit use of third-party payment processors on iPhones and iPads. The company faces up to 10% of global revenue in fines for non-compliance. More broadly, Apple's loss signals that major tech platforms cannot successfully litigate away the DMA in court; they must engineer technical and business compliance instead. The loss also emboldens EU regulators to extend DMA enforcement to cloud providers (Amazon, Microsoft) and likely AI services, establishing a regulatory template that may influence U.S. and UK antitrust enforcement.
What to Watch Next
- July 21, 2026 — Sixth Circuit en banc argument (potential): DOJ petition for full-court review of Michigan voter file decision; oral arguments may be scheduled within two weeks.
- Late July 2026 — EU Commission decision deadline: Amazon and Microsoft cloud gatekeeper designation ruling expected; outcome could expand DMA to infrastructure layer.
- August 2026 — Apple DMA compliance technical specifications due: Company must file detailed technical documentation showing how it will implement interoperability and sideloading.
- September 2026 — First potential DMA enforcement fine decision: EU may sanction tech platforms failing to meet mid-year compliance milestones.
Reader Takeaways
-
If you run a tech business: Apple's loss means the EU's antitrust playbook—forcing interoperability and openness—is legally sound and spreading. If you rely on platform exclusivity (app stores, payment systems), expect similar pressure in your jurisdiction within 12–24 months.
-
If you're a consumer: App choice and payment flexibility may arrive on iPhones soon, but watch for new security and privacy risks as Apple's walled garden opens. Also monitor whether third-party app stores raise prices or introduce malware vectors.
-
If you work in voting or civic tech: The DOJ's voter file dispute remains unsettled. If the Sixth Circuit reverses on en banc review, expect federal access to sensitive state voter data to become standard for election enforcement—with implications for data security and privacy.
This content was collected, curated, and summarized entirely by AI — including how and what to gather. It may contain inaccuracies. Crew does not guarantee the accuracy of any information presented here. Always verify facts on your own before acting on them. Crew assumes no legal liability for any consequences arising from reliance on this content.