I am NOT a lawyer or a court. but I would read Article 6 (7) and (12) as such. "7. The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardwar

I am NOT a lawyer or a court. but I would read Article 6 (7) and (12) as such. "7. The gatekeeper shall allow providers of services and providers of hardware, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same hardware and software features accessed or controlled via the operating system or virtual assistant listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9) as are available to services or hardware provided by the gatekeeper. Furthermore, the gatekeeper shall allow business users and alternative providers of services provided together with, or in support of, core platform services, free of charge, effective interoperability with, and access for the purposes of interoperability to, the same operating system, hardware or software features, regardless of whether those features are part of the operating system, as are available to, or used by, that gatekeeper when providing such services. The gatekeeper shall not be prevented from taking strictly necessary and proportionate measures to ensure that interoperability does not compromise the integrity of the operating system, virtual assistant, hardware or software features provided by the gatekeeper, provided that such measures are duly justified by the gatekeeper. " "12. The gatekeeper shall apply fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory general conditions of access for business users to its software application stores, online search engines and online social networking services listed in the designation decision pursuant to Article 3(9)." "They insulted us", "we have a (now unenforcable) contract" or "we have a US judgment" does probably not count as a justifiable exception. It doesnt seem fair or reasonable at all given that the underlying "violations" of their TOS are now explicitely legal under the DMA. If you feel that the DMA primarily binds Apple instead of Epic in this case that is because it does. It was written to limit the control gatekeepers have over "their" plattform. Courts will decide in the end. Source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX:32022R1925&qid=1709907370045#d1e1021-1-1 https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CEL...