I'm not doubling down on it. I'm using the consequences of the analogy to reject the premise that the DMA is justified because Apple was violating existing antitrust laws which has been argued hundreds of times in this forum, particularly by the poster that I responded to.
Fair enough, although I'd personally argue the point is the other way around: the DMA is justified because Apple (and, for the record, many others) were engaging in anti-competitive behaviour that wasn't properly addressed by existing antitrust legislation. If it had been the DMA would be superfluous.
I disagree. Voting to punish individual companies certainly bypasses due process.
Just because there may be parts of the DMA that Apple is particularly affected by doesn't mean Apple was specifically targeted or that Apple's due process rights have somehow been violated. What would those be in this scenario anyway?
Apple still has the full range of regulatory and judicial remedies available to challenge the findings of the application to the DMA to its services. It's been a while since I've actually looked at EU law, but I tend to believe that this would also include a challenge to the legality of the DMA itself, provided Apple has standing.
But I don't know why a legislator would be prohibited from addressing undesirable outcomes if they are only caused by a single company (and one with significant market reach and power at that).
The DMA was created to benefit European companies primarily by requiring specific foreign multi-nationals to provide services for free, rather than to incentivize competition.
There's no denying that the driving idea behind the DMA is to give competitors, and preferably European ones, a fighting chance against big American tech, although I disagree that it's about "providing services for free." In what sense would this be true?
They need to open up, yes, and make some services interoperable, which is about as close as it gets to your characterisation.
Whether it will have the desired effect remains to be seen, but in the absence of the very unlikely rise of yet another mobile platform, the only way to incentivise competition is by levelling the playing field.
Again, it's NOT just like the Microsoft case, because Apple is being forced to make changes WITHOUT due process or legal findings of illegal behavior. The DMA is forcing them to make changes within the EU.
Again, Apple can challenge all of this using the established regulatory and judicial proceedings.
Companies have to adjust to changing regulatory and legislative frameworks all the time, that's not a violation of their due process rights unless the legislator overstepped its constitutional powers, but it doesn't sound like this is the case here.
There is no need to find evidence of illegal behaviour in advance because that's not how law making works.
I absolutely agree with your point that this isn't comparable to the Microsoft case, but it feels to me as if you're using the rebuttal to make broader points about the DMA that make just as little sense. If that's not the case I do apologise for misunderstanding you.
