Apple browser engine ban persists even under DMA

Apple’s rules and technical restrictions are blocking other browser vendors from successfully offering their own engines to users in the EU. At the recent Digital Markets Act (DMA) workshop, Apple claimed it didn’t know why no browser vendor has ported their engine to iOS over the past 15 months. But the reality is Apple knows exactly what the barriers are and has chosen not to remove them.

Safari is the highest margin product Apple has ever made, accounting for 14-16% of Apple’s annual operating profit and bringing in $20 billion per year in search engine revenue from Google. For each 1% browser market share that Apple loses for Safari, Apple is set to lose $200 million in revenue per year.

Ensuring other browsers are not able to compete fairly is critical to Apple’s best and easiest revenue stream and allows Apple to retain full control over the maximum capabilities of web apps, limiting their performance and utility to prevent them from meaningfully competing with native apps distributed through their app store. Consumers and developers (native or web) then suffer due to a lack of competition.

This browser engine ban is unique to Apple and no other gatekeeper imposes such a restriction. Until Apple lifts these barriers, they are not in effective compliance with the DMA.

We had the opportunity to question Apple directly on this at the 2025 DMA workshop. Here's how they responded:

Apple browser engine ban persists even under DMA: Quick Background

As a quick background to new readers, we (Open Web Advocacy) are a non-profit dedicated to improving browser and web app competition on all operating systems. We receive no funding from any gatekeeper nor any of the browser vendors. We have engaged with multiple regulators, including in the EU, UK, Japan, Australia, and the United States.

Our primary concern is Apple’s rule banning third-party browser engines from iOS and thus setting a ceiling on browser and web app competition.

We engaged extensively with the UK’s CMA and the EU on this topic, and to our delight, specific text was added to the EU’s Digital Markets Act explicitly prohibiting the banning of third-party browser engines and stating that the purpose was to prevent gatekeepers from determining the performance, stability, and functionality of third-party browsers and the web apps they power.

The first batch of designated gatekeepers, Apple, Google, Meta, Amazon, Bytedance, Microsoft, were required to be in compliance with the DMA by March 7th, 2024.

Apple’s compliance did not start well. Faced with the genuine possibility of third-party browsers effectively powering web apps, Apple's first instinct was to remove web app support entirely from iOS with no notice to either businesses or consumers. Under significant pressure from us and the Commission, Apple canceled their plan to sabotage web apps in the EU.

Both Google and Mozilla began porting their browser engines Blink and Gecko respectively to iOS. Other browser vendors are dependent on these ports to bring their own engines to their browsers on iOS, as their products are typically soft forks (copies with modifications) of Blink or Gecko.

However, there were significant issues with Apple’s contract and technical restrictions that made porting browser engines to iOS “as painful as possible” for browser vendors.

Key Barriers Apple has put in Place

At the DMA workshop last week, we directly raised with Apple the primary blocker preventing third-party browser engines from shipping on iOS. Apple claimed that vendors like Google and Mozilla have “everything they need” to ship a browser engine in the EU and simply "have chosen not to do so."

Apple has been fully aware of these barriers since at least June 2024, when we covered them in exhaustive detail. Multiple browser vendors have also discussed these same issues with Apple directly. The suggestion that Apple is unaware of the problems is not just ridiculous, it’s demonstrably false.

The most critical barriers that continue to block third-party engines on iOS include:

• Loss of existing EU users: Apple forces browser vendors to create entirely new apps to use their own engine, meaning they must abandon all current EU users and start from scratch.
• Web developer testing: Apple allows native app developers outside the EU to test EU-specific functionality, but offers no equivalent for web developers to test their software using third-party browser engines on iOS.
• No updates on long trips outside EU: Apple has not confirmed they will not disable browser updates if an EU user travels outside the EU for more than 30 days.
• Hostile legal terms: The contractual conditions Apple imposes are harsh, one-sided, and incompatible with the DMA’s requirements.
   

Apple has addressed two of the issues we raised:

• Dual engine support (allowing browsers to include both WebKit and their own engine in the same app).
• Allow browser vendors to test their own browsers (outside the EU).
   

However, the most critical barrier remains: Apple still forces browser vendors to abandon all their existing EU users if they want to ship a non-WebKit engine, making the investment commercially nonviable.

Why Does this Matter?

The web is the world’s only truly open and interoperable platform. It requires no contracts with OS gatekeepers, no revenue sharing, and no approval from dominant platform owners. Users can switch browsers, move between devices, and cross ecosystems without losing access to data or tools.

Apple’s justification for its gatekeeping is security. But the secure, interoperable alternative already exists, the web and web apps.

However, this promise only holds if browser vendors are allowed to compete on every platform. Without that, Apple can unilaterally limit what the web is capable of, not just on iOS, but everywhere.

Is Apple Obligated to Fix This Under the DMA?

Apple’s representatives argue that browser vendors can port their own engines to iOS, and at a highly superficial and technical level, this is true. But the conditions Apple imposes make doing so financially unviable.

The Core Obligation: Article 5(7)

The DMA states:

"The gatekeeper shall not require end users or business users to use, offer, or interoperate with a web browser engine or a payment service of that gatekeeper in the context of services provided by the business users using that gatekeeper’s core platform services."

At face value, Apple appears to comply. But effective compliance requires that the measures actually achieve the law’s objectives.

But the DMA Demands More Than Surface-Level Compliance

Under Article 8(1) and Article 13(4), Apple must ensure that compliance is effective and must not undermine obligations through contractual or technical means.

The Intent Behind Article 5(7)

Recital 43 clarifies that gatekeepers should not dictate browser functionality and standards. The intent is to guarantee that browser vendors have freedom to implement their own engines.

Is Apple Complying in Practice?

Fifteen months since the DMA came into force, no browser vendor has successfully ported a competing engine to iOS. Apple’s barriers remain insurmountable, making it non-compliant.

Why Apple is Right to Fear a Successful DMA Solution

If the EU succeeds, it will set a global precedent. Other governments, in the UK, Japan, Australia, and the US, are already pushing for similar laws. Apple’s resistance is ultimately about protecting billions in annual revenue.

Apple vs the World

This isn’t Europe versus America, it’s Apple versus the world. The major organizations working to port alternative engines (Google, Mozilla, Microsoft) are themselves American. Apple’s restrictions benefit no one but Apple.

Apple DMA Workshop

At the DMA workshop, Apple executives insisted that third-party engines are permitted but failed to address why no vendor has been able to launch one.

Apple’s executives repeatedly cited security and platform integrity but provided no concrete evidence that current restrictions are necessary or proportionate.

Spotify & Web Developer Testing

OWA members emphasized the need for global web developer testing. Apple suggested they are discussing solutions with Mozilla and Google but has offered no published details.

Mozilla on the Separate App Requirement

Mozilla directly challenged Apple to explain how the separate binary rule is a proportionate security measure. Apple has yet to provide detailed justification.

Web Apps Powered by Other Engines

Apple has given no indication that it will allow third-party browsers to manage home screen web apps, a core element needed for compliance.

What Needs to Be Fixed on iOS?

OWA outlines specific demands, including:

• No separate app requirement (single bundle ID)
• Allow web developer testing globally
• Update SFSafariViewController to respect default browser choices
• Provide equivalent access to hardware and content filtering APIs
• Remove unfair contract terms
• Allow own browser extensions
• Allow web apps to be installed and managed by third-party engines
• Enable fair distribution, including direct installs and automatic notarization
   

What Now?

Apple is not in compliance with the DMA. Without firm intervention, Apple will continue to avoid meaningful change.

We call on the Commission to investigate and compel Apple to make the necessary changes. This enforcement will benefit EU consumers, businesses, and ultimately the world.

OWA v Apple - Browser Engines - EC DMA 20251