Apple’s next EU fight is not over an App Store fee. It is over whether iCloud gets system privileges that rival cloud services cannot match.
Italy’s competition regulator has opened an investigation into Apple over compliance with the Digital Markets Act interoperability rules for iOS and iPadOS, according to 9to5Mac. The allegation is narrow, but the implication is larger: Apple’s most convenient services may become antitrust targets when that convenience depends on access rivals do not receive.
The case turns on a blunt question. If Apple controls the operating system, can it give its own cloud service deeper access than competing consumer cloud providers? Italy’s authority says it has grounds to believe third-party providers “may not be on an equal footing” with Apple’s iCloud because they do not appear to have access to the same components used by Apple’s service.
iCloud’s convenience is now the competition problem
Apple has long defended tight integration as a feature. Users buy an iPhone or iPad, sign into their Apple account, and iCloud sits close to the device experience. That can make backup and recovery feel simpler.
Regulators are looking at the same design and seeing a gatekeeping issue.
Under Article 6(7) of the Digital Markets Act, Apple must give third-party consumer cloud service providers effective interoperability with iOS and iPadOS, free of charge, and equal access to the same hardware and software components available to iCloud. Italy’s AGCM is not saying merely that rival apps exist in the App Store. It is asking whether they can compete at the same system level.
The Authority says third-party cloud providers “may not be on an equal footing with Apple’s iCloud service,” because they do not appear to have access to the same components used by, or made available to, iCloud.
That distinction matters. App-level access and operating-system-level access are not the same thing. A rival cloud provider can offer an app. The reported concern is whether it can offer the same kind of full-device backup functionality that iCloud can.
The full-device backup example cuts to the heart of the case
The most concrete example in the source material is full backup of data stored on devices. Italy’s authority says Apple appears not to allow alternative cloud storage services for end users to use the iOS and iPadOS components that enable full backup, while iCloud can.
That is the clearest factual core of the probe. Not prompts. Not Photos. Not Messages. Not setup screens. Those may be tempting areas for broader speculation, but the reported investigation is specifically about interoperability and equal access to components, with full-device backup named as the example.
The competitive gap, if regulators prove it, would look like this:
- Before: Third-party cloud providers may be available as apps, but iCloud may retain system-level access for full-device backup.
- After regulatory intervention: Apple could be pushed to give qualifying third-party cloud providers access to the same relevant iOS and iPadOS components.
- If Apple wins: The company may preserve a distinction between first-party system services and third-party cloud apps, at least for the features under review.
MLXIO analysis: this is why the case is more important than a single cloud feature. The DMA is not only testing whether rivals can enter Apple’s software environment. It is testing whether they can compete inside the operating system on functions Apple has reserved for its own services.
Italy is feeding the EU machine, not running the final case alone
This is not a purely Italian antitrust matter. The AGCM is using powers tied to the Digital Markets Act, and the findings will be sent to the European Commission.
Il Sole 24 Ore reports that this is the first time Italy’s authority has exercised powers under Article 38(7) of the DMA, conferred by Law No 214 of 30 December 2023, to assist the Commission with preliminary investigations. The proceedings were opened in close cooperation with the Commission, and the results will be forwarded to Brussels because the Commission remains the sole DMA enforcer.
That structure gives national regulators a meaningful role without turning DMA enforcement into a patchwork. Italy can collect evidence and frame the issue. The Commission decides what to do with it.
The financial backdrop is not symbolic. MacRumors reports that companies violating DMA rules can face fines of up to 10% of worldwide annual revenue. Separately, 9to5Mac notes that Apple has paid fines totaling almost $3 billion in the past couple of years for breaches of competition laws.
For Apple, even a preliminary investigation adds pressure. For Brussels, it adds another test case for how deep “interoperability” really goes.
Apple’s broader EU posture makes this probe harder to dismiss
The iCloud case lands while Apple is already fighting European pressure across other parts of its platform control. 9to5Mac notes that Apple has taken a tough line in antitrust disputes, rarely admitting wrongdoing and in some cases saying it would rather partially or wholly withdraw from a market than comply with regulator demands.
The source gives one current example: Apple Intelligence features in iOS 27 are not available in the first developer beta inside EU countries. The EU wants Apple to give third-party AI services the same iPhone access as the new Siri, while Apple has refused on security and privacy grounds. Apple says the European Commission has not responded to its compromise proposal.
That dispute is separate from iCloud. But the pattern is relevant: regulators are pressing Apple on access to privileged parts of the device, and Apple is resisting where it sees security, privacy, or product integrity risks. MLXIO has tracked the same operating-system control theme in iOS 27 Bets on Fixing Your iPhone Before AI Takes Over and the hardware side of Apple’s AI strategy in 12GB RAM Gate Turns Apple AI Into a Costly Upgrade Trap.
Apple has not provided, in the supplied source material, a specific public response to the Italian iCloud investigation. So the limits matter. It would be reasonable to expect Apple to argue that deep cloud backup access raises security and privacy questions, because it has used those arguments in the AI access fight. But that is inference, not a reported statement on this case.
The services strategy risk is narrower than the rhetoric — but still real
The supplied sources do not provide Apple’s services revenue, iCloud subscriber numbers, European installed base, or rival market shares. That means any claim about the precise commercial hit would be unsupported.
Still, the strategic risk is visible without inventing numbers. iCloud is not just a standalone storage product. It is tied to device backup and recovery, and the Italian authority’s example goes directly to that function. If regulators require Apple to open those system components to third-party cloud providers, Apple could face a more demanding version of competition: not rival apps sitting beside iCloud, but rival services able to perform the same core device-protection role.
For users, the practical effects would depend on the remedy. Possible outcomes include:
| Scenario | What changes for Apple | What changes for rivals | What users may notice |
|---|---|---|---|
| No breach found | iCloud keeps the disputed access model | App-level competition remains the main route | Little visible change |
| Targeted interoperability remedy | Apple opens specific iOS/iPadOS components tied to backup | Cloud providers may build closer backup alternatives | More credible non-iCloud backup options |
| Broader DMA action | Apple faces wider scrutiny of equal access rules | Rivals gain leverage in future access requests | More visible choices, but also possible support and privacy tradeoffs |
MLXIO analysis: the narrowest remedy would focus only on the components needed for full-device backup. A broader remedy could create a precedent for other first-party services embedded into iOS and iPadOS. The sources do not show that regulators have reached that broader theory yet.
The next test is whether Brussels treats backup as infrastructure
The likely near-term path is procedural: Italy gathers evidence, coordinates with the European Commission, and forwards its findings. The Commission then decides whether Apple’s treatment of iCloud breaches the DMA’s interoperability obligations.
The evidence that would strengthen the case is specific: proof that iCloud has access to iOS and iPadOS backup components that third-party consumer cloud providers cannot access on equal terms. Evidence that would weaken it would show either that rivals already receive equivalent access, or that Apple can justify the difference within the DMA framework.
This is the deeper signal. Europe’s Apple enforcement is moving past the question of whether rivals are allowed into the App Store. The sharper question is whether they can compete where Apple’s own services touch the operating system itself.
Impact Analysis
- The investigation could force Apple to open deeper iOS and iPadOS access to rival cloud services.
- It shows EU regulators are targeting Apple’s system-level service advantages, not just App Store fees.
- Consumers could eventually see more competitive backup and cloud options on Apple devices.
