It would be surprising if the EU they didn't hit Apple with billions in fines for the most obvious form of malicious non-compliance after going through all that effort of passing the regulations.
Not in general, and courts would have to decide whether it's a violation in this specific case. The DMA doesn't force Apple to platform apps used primarily for piracy, it just requires that they be able to justify restrictions and keep them as narrow as possible. De-platforming a specific app is about as narrow as it gets.
Also, it's arguable that the DSA (Digital Services Act), which is just as applicable, actually compels Apple to de-platform this app. The DMA is a competition law, and allowing an app whose primary purpose is distribution of infringing content undermines fair competition among legitimate content providers.
Article 6(4).
> The gatekeeper shall allow and technically enable the installation and effective use of third-party software applications or software application stores using, or interoperating with, its operating system and allow those software applications or software application stores to be accessed by means other than the relevant core platform services of that gatekeeper.
By requiring notarization, Apple requires users and developers to use their core platform services in order to access 3rd party apps.
But they haven't provided a justification for this. The least you'd expect would be a "this app violates notarization guideline x.x.x". They might have to edit the CSS on their website a little (add the .lighter-override class) but after that they could just cite 5.2.3 [1].
[1] https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#leg...
> it's arguable that the DSA (Digital Services Act), which is just as applicable, actually compels Apple to de-platform this app
I'll assume this is completely bogus, unless you elaborate.
Also, the text of the DMA confirms that they can only restrict apps outside of the App Store if they endanger the integrity of the OS, not for any other reason. Not even for "enabling IP infringement" (which browsers would also be guilty of).
The EU does seem to take violations of the DMA seriously, and this is unambiguously a violation.
IANAL, but here's the bit where I explained this: "…allowing an app whose primary purpose is distribution of infringing content undermines fair competition among legitimate content providers."
To elaborate on that a bit more: Apple is a DSA-designated VLOP. Articles 34–35 obligate them to respond to risks on its platform (like apps used primarily for piracy) with proportionate mitigation. That's why EU courts (if they're ever involved) will find that blocking iTorrent is unambiguously a lawful and proportionate response according to the DSA.
Secondly, articles 34-35 say no such thing. Article 34 only calls out "the dissemination of illegal content through their services" as a systemic risk. A torrent client is not illegal content.
Article 35 lists "illegal hate speech" and "cyber violence" as pointed examples of illegal content.
> c) adapting content moderation processes, including the speed and quality of processing notices related to specific types of illegal content and, where appropriate, the expeditious removal of, or the disabling of access to, the content notified, in particular in respect of illegal hate speech or cyber violence, as well as adapting any relevant decision-making processes and dedicated resources for content moderation;