Following a 12-year investigation by the French Competition and Consumer Authority (DGCCRF), the Paris Economic Activities Tribunal ruled on October 10, 2025, that Apple had engaged in unfair competition against French telecom operators through multiple illegal clauses in its distribution contracts and ordered it to pay a total of €48 million (approximately RMB 398 million) in compensation and fines. The case dates back to 2013, when several French government ministers jointly filed a lawsuit accusing Apple of using its iPhone sales rights to impose unfair conditions on carriers.
Disputed Clauses and Details of the Judgment
The court found Apple guilty of three major violations:
Forced sharing of marketing costs: Operators were required to cover iPhone advertising expenses (e.g., Orange paid €10 million annually) and prioritize iPhone display in their stores. The court noted that this constituted "substantial dominance over the operators";
Imbalanced commercial terms: These included mandatory procurement of a fixed number of devices, fixed retail prices, and free use of operator patented technology and network data;
Abuse of dominant market position: The judgment emphasized that the iPhone's technological leadership gave Apple a dominant position in negotiations, while operators, relying on contract sales channels, were forced to accept harsh terms.
Compensation awards were allocated as follows: €16 million to Bouygues Telecom, €15 million to Free, and €7.7 million to SFR, plus an €8 million administrative fine and €950,000 in legal costs. Notably, Orange received no compensation for actively entering into an exclusive agreement.
Legal proceedings continue
Apple has stated that it will appeal, and the case is expected to continue for several years. This ruling is considered a significant case for regulating the business practices of tech giants, particularly their practice of using market dominance to pass on costs. The French judiciary specifically pointed out that the "time lag" between the initial profits of carriers from iPhone sales and subsequent claims affected the legitimacy of some of these claims, a finding that may provide a reference for similar cases.
