Can the Digital Markets Act prevent Android-style abuses by gatekeepers like Google and Apple?

Alphabet Inc. (NASDAQ: GOOGL) and Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) are navigating a transformed regulatory environment in the European Union as enforcement under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) enters its second year. Following the European Commission’s €4.124 billion antitrust fine against Google over Android bundling practices—a decision now backed by the Advocate General’s June 2025 opinion—the DMA represents a structural shift toward preemptive regulation of dominant digital platforms.

Unlike traditional competition law, which punishes past misconduct, the DMA imposes forward-looking obligations on designated “gatekeepers.” It is being tested on whether it can effectively prevent the types of ecosystem lock-ins and market distortions that have historically allowed tech giants like Google and Apple to dominate search, app distribution, and in-app payments through bundling and default-setting practices.

What specific behaviors under the Digital Markets Act are designed to stop pre-installation and bundling abuses?

The Digital Markets Act targets behaviors similar to those at the center of the Google Android antitrust case. Articles 5 and 6 prohibit gatekeepers from conditioning access to core platform services on the use of other proprietary tools, such as search engines or browsers. Users must be able to uninstall pre-installed apps, change defaults freely, and install apps via third-party stores or sideloading.

These obligations directly confront Google’s prior requirement that Android device manufacturers pre-install both Google Search and Chrome in exchange for Play Store access—an arrangement the European Commission ruled in 2018 as illegal bundling. Apple, meanwhile, has historically prohibited sideloading on iOS and required that apps use its own payment system, both of which are now restricted under the DMA framework.

Institutional observers consider these restrictions the most direct legislative attempt to unwind the status quo bias that favors incumbent gatekeepers by leveraging control over defaults, integrations, and software distribution channels.

How are Google and Apple restructuring their platforms to comply with Digital Markets Act rules in 2025?

Since the DMA’s compliance regime came into force on March 7, 2024, Alphabet and Apple have undertaken significant platform adjustments to align with their gatekeeper status. Alphabet introduced choice screens in Android’s European device setup flows and extended third-party billing options in the Play Store. Apple launched support for sideloading and introduced a new system for alternative app marketplaces in iOS, available exclusively in the European Union.

These adjustments were first submitted in compliance reports filed in early 2024. However, after more than a year of implementation, enforcement scrutiny has intensified. In March 2025, the European Commission opened formal investigations into both companies. Regulators are examining whether Apple’s sideloading process—restricted to enterprise developers with a high technical barrier to entry—complies with the DMA’s intent to enable meaningful market access. Likewise, Google’s presentation of alternative services via choice screens is under review to assess whether it genuinely facilitates user switching or subtly reinforces incumbency.

The outcomes of these proceedings, expected later in 2025, will establish critical precedents for how strictly the Commission will enforce the DMA’s letter versus its spirit.

What lessons did regulators draw from the original Android case and how is the DMA structured to avoid similar gaps?

The Android case underscored how long antitrust enforcement can take. Google’s original fine was issued in 2018, and only in 2025 has the case neared legal closure. This procedural lag highlighted the need for an ex-ante regulatory tool that could stop dominance strategies before they become entrenched.

The DMA addresses this directly by requiring designated gatekeepers—those with over 45 million monthly EU users and €7.5 billion in annual turnover—to proactively comply with structural obligations. Rather than waiting years to prove anticompetitive behavior, the European Commission can now act swiftly. Non-compliance can trigger fines of up to 10 percent of global turnover and 20 percent for repeat violations.

This regulatory shift, championed by Margrethe Vestager during her tenure as European Commissioner for Competition from 2014 to 2024, was designed to create real-time accountability mechanisms in fast-moving digital markets, where traditional legal processes have struggled to keep pace with platform evolution. Vestager’s leadership was instrumental in shaping the DMA’s core philosophy of ex-ante intervention, which now guides enforcement under her successors at the European Commission.

How are institutional investors interpreting DMA enforcement and its implications for platform profitability?

Institutional sentiment on the DMA remains mixed. On one hand, investors recognize that compliance with the DMA may introduce operational costs and modest revenue headwinds in Europe, especially for Alphabet’s advertising business and Apple’s services revenue tied to App Store commissions. On the other hand, analysts suggest that the global revenue base of both firms offers insulation, and user inertia may limit the DMA’s practical disruption.

Google’s early usage data shows that even when users are given search engine choice, many still select Google. Apple’s iOS user base, known for brand loyalty and frictionless integration, may not adopt alternative app stores or sideloaded apps at scale. As a result, the near-term financial impact is perceived as manageable unless the regulatory model spreads globally.

However, any expansion of DMA-like frameworks—especially in the United States or major Asian economies—would likely prompt revaluation of platform risk models and digital ecosystem strategy.

Could the DMA become a global template for digital platform regulation in other major jurisdictions?

The Digital Markets Act has already captured international attention as a potential model for regulating digital gatekeepers. In India, the Competition Commission has adopted similar positions in its rulings against Google, including a 2022 order mandating unbundling of Android components and fines totaling over ₹2,000 crore. In South Korea, the Telecommunications Business Act has established rules requiring platform fairness in app marketplaces and payments. Japan’s Digital Market Competition Council is also exploring mandates around interoperability and dominance.

In the United States, the Trump administration’s antitrust approach—managed by the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Justice—has maintained scrutiny of platform conduct but has not significantly advanced structural reforms. While interest in addressing digital dominance persists, momentum has been hindered by legislative deadlock in Congress. Key proposals like the American Innovation and Choice Online Act, which mirror the Digital Markets Act’s core principles around bundling and self-preferencing, remain stalled without bipartisan traction. With regulatory direction now shifting under President Trump’s renewed leadership, the path forward for federal platform regulation appears uncertain.

If the DMA succeeds in creating tangible shifts in user behavior, app market competition, and monetization dynamics, it is likely to become the gold standard for future regulatory drafting in other economies.

What is expected from European regulators and gatekeepers in the next enforcement cycle under the DMA?

The next 6–12 months will be critical in determining whether the DMA’s enforcement muscle matches its legislative ambition. Final outcomes from the March 2025 non-compliance probes are expected before year-end, with Apple and Alphabet under pressure to show that their changes are not merely technical workarounds. Additional investigations into Meta and Amazon, particularly related to marketplace data usage and cross-service promotions, are also expected.

The European Commission is ramping up its internal capacity with new hires in the Directorate-General for Competition and the new European Centre for Algorithmic Transparency. Observers anticipate tighter technical audits of UI design, algorithmic rankings, and backend access to ensure that DMA compliance isn’t circumvented through subtle steering or interface friction.

Meanwhile, developers and smaller service providers will continue testing the boundaries of DMA rights—submitting complaints, building alternative stores, and engaging directly with regulators. If successful, the DMA could open the door to a new generation of contestable digital services in Europe.

One year into enforcement, the Digital Markets Act stands at a critical inflection point. Whether it can truly prevent another Android-style ecosystem lock-in will depend on how rigorously gatekeepers comply, how deeply regulators enforce, and whether users actually change their behaviors when empowered with choice. For now, the framework is doing what legacy antitrust law could not—creating real-time accountability for dominant digital platforms.