The Garden of Eden: The Danish Competition Council takes a bite out of Apple

On 17 December 2025, the Danish Competition Council (“DCC”) announced that it had closed a case against Apple through binding commitments aimed at removing barriers to independent iPhone repairs in Denmark. The purpose of this was to ensure better conditions for iPhone repairs going forward. 

Background to the case

For several years, Apple restricted third-party access to essential technical information and special tools needed to repair iPhones in Denmark. From at least November 2018 to December 2024, Apple required that repairs – such as screen, battery and camera replacements – be carried out using new original Apple spare parts and Apple software to restore full functionality. Repairs performed without Apple components were met with error messages and limited functionality. 

Although Apple gradually opened up to third-party repairs from 2018 onwards, obstacles remained. If an iPhone was repaired with non-original spare parts, a warning message appeared, suggesting that the device might still be defective. This was considered to create a significant competitive disadvantage for independent repairers.  

The authority’s assessment – was this an abuse of dominance?

Following a complaint, the Danish Competition and Consumer Authority (“DCCA”) launched an investigation and preliminarily assessed that Apple held a dominant position in the market for key inputs for Apple repairs, including technical data and special tools in Denmark. The authority’s preliminary view was that Apple’s conduct could constitute an abuse under Article 102 TFEU by restricting competition in the aftermarket for repairs. 

The DCC articulated a clear theory of harm, where Apple’s dominance in the input market was leveraged to restrict competition in the repair market. The decision draws several legal parallels to EU case law, referencing case AT.40452 – Apple Mobile Payments, recital 34, which identifies Apple as dominant in the supply of certain inputs, as well as Google Shopping (C-48/22), and Google Automotive Services (C-233/23), all of which confirm that leveraging market power by the tech giants may constitute abuses when competitors cannot counteract such conduct. 

Whether Apple’s conduct amounted to abuse in this specific case was not determined, as no infringement was found – the case was closed through commitments. 

Apple’s commitments 

Apple has provided binding commitments, including:

• Not introducing artificial barriers to repairs, regardless of whether parts are original, non-original, new, or used, and regardless of the repairer’s affiliation.
• Guaranteeing that all spare parts – regardless of type and source – can restore full functionality after repair.
• Displaying only objective, factual, and non-discriminatory messages on iPhones after repair to avoid creating doubt among users.

Why is this case significant?

It is rare for a national authority to intervene against a global tech giant. Typically, such cases are handled by the European Commission. In Denmark, however, the intervention was natural, as Apple products are particularly widespread, and the case has direct implications for Danish consumers and independent repairers. 

Similar steps have been seen elsewhere in the EU. For example, in June 2025, the Rotterdam District Court upheld a decision by the Dutch competition authority (ACM) against Apple regarding App Store terms for dating apps. Apple was required to change its payment rules and paid €50 million in fines for non-compliance. Please refer to Bird & Bird’s article on the case here for more information.

Implications for consumers and repairers 

Consumers are expected to gain access to cheaper repairs and a wider choice of repairers, reducing the need to buy a new phone instead of repairing the old one. Independent repairers will gain access to the same technical inputs and full functionality as authorised workshops, thereby creating new business opportunities.

Read the Danish Competition Council’s press release here (in Danish). 

Read the full decision here (in Danish). 

For more information, please contact Morten Nissen, Alexander Brøchner or Selma Hjorth Aslan.

VISIT OUR COMPETITION & EU HOMEPAGE