Italy's AGCM Opens First National DMA Probe Into Apple Over iCloud Backup Interoperability

Overview

Italy’s competition authority, the Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM), launched an investigation into Apple on June 16, 2026 over whether the company complies with the European Union’s Digital Markets Act (DMA) interoperability requirements for cloud storage, according to Advanced Television. The probe targets a specific gap: alternative cloud services cannot offer full device backups on iPhones and iPads in the way Apple’s own iCloud can.

The action is the first time Italy’s regulator has exercised its powers under the DMA, as reported by Verdict.

What We Know

The investigation names three Apple entities — Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd and Apple Italia S.r.l. — according to Digital Watch Observatory and AppleInsider.

At the center of the case is Article 6(7) of the DMA, which requires Apple to “ensure that third-party providers of consumer cloud are granted free and effective interoperability with the iOS and iPadOS operating systems,” as reported by Advanced Television. Under that provision, rival cloud services “must also be given access on equal terms to the same hardware and software features that are available to Apple’s own iCloud service,” according to Verdict.

The AGCM’s specific concern is that this equal footing does not exist today. “Apple does not allow alternative cloud storage services to use the iOS and iPadOS features enabling end users to perform a full backup of their devices’ data, while those same features are available to Apple’s iCloud,” the authority found, as reported by Advanced Television and Verdict. In practice, the probe examines “whether third-party consumer cloud service providers have the same ability as Apple’s iCloud to interact with hardware and software features on devices running iOS and iPadOS,” according to PYMNTS.

The AGCM is acting under national legislation that lets it support DMA enforcement. The authority’s powers stem from Law 214 of December 30, 2023, the 2022 Annual Law on Pro-competitive Reforms, according to Verdict. Advanced Television reports that the specific provision is Article 18 of that law, which implements EU Regulation 2022/1925, the DMA itself, per Advanced Television.

The investigation was opened in close cooperation with the European Commission, according to AppleInsider. Enforcement authority under the DMA ultimately rests with Brussels: “While enforcement authority ultimately rests with the European Commission, national competition agencies can conduct preliminary investigations and share their findings with Brussels,” as reported by PYMNTS. “The findings of the Authority will be shared with the Commission to support it in its role as sole DMA enforcer,” according to Advanced Television.

Apple had not publicly commented on the probe at the time of reporting, according to AppleInsider.

What We Don’t Know

The published reporting does not specify a deadline for the AGCM to conclude its inquiry, nor what remedies or penalties might follow if the authority finds a violation. Because the European Commission is the sole DMA enforcer, it is also unclear whether and how Brussels would act on Italy’s findings, or on what timeline.

Apple’s response is also unknown. The company had not addressed the substance of the allegations publicly when the probe was first reported, so its legal or technical arguments — for instance, whether it considers full-device backup access a security boundary rather than a withheld interoperability feature — are not yet on the record.

Analysis

The significance of the Italian action is less about its immediate scope than about the mechanism it demonstrates. The DMA designates the European Commission as the single enforcer of its gatekeeper rules, but national authorities retain the ability to run preliminary investigations and feed evidence to Brussels, as PYMNTS notes. Italy invoking that pathway for the first time — a point made by both Digital Watch Observatory and Verdict — shows how the DMA’s enforcement can be distributed across member states rather than concentrated solely in the Commission’s hands.

The chosen target is also narrow and concrete. Rather than a sweeping interoperability complaint, the AGCM has homed in on one capability that is easy to test: whether a competing cloud provider can perform a full iPhone backup the way iCloud does. That specificity, drawn directly from Article 6(7)‘s text as quoted by Advanced Television, makes the case a clean factual question about feature parity rather than an open-ended dispute over Apple’s platform design.