During its annual WWDC 26 developer conference on June 8, Apple unveiled a new version of its assistant under a new name: Siri AI. During the presentation, however, the Cupertino-based company was quick to point out that the service will not be available in the European Union.
According to Apple, the Digital Markets Act (DMA) is to blame. According to European Commission spokesperson Thomas Regnier, the opposite is true: “The decision not to launch Siri AI in the EU rests solely with Apple and Apple alone.”
What does each side say?
The Digital Markets Act is a law in effect throughout the European Union. Its purpose is to level the playing field for all players in the digital market by promoting competition and combating monopolistic practices.
Under this law, Apple has already been fined 500 million euros, a penalty imposed by the European Commission on April 23, 2025. The reason given was that Apple prevented developers from informing users about cheaper, alternative payment methods outside the App Store—that is, options that allow users to bypass the commission Apple charges on transactions in its store. This was the first fine ever imposed on Apple under the DMA.
This time, according to the European Commission, Apple is hindering competition in the area of its new Siri AI service. The company is accused of denying competing AI models equal access to and insight into users’ devices compared to its flagship service.
The Cupertino-based company is passing the buck. In its press release, it states:
“According to EU regulators, the DMA requires Apple to provide every artificial intelligence system with virtually unlimited access to the user’s device, as well as the ability to use that access independently without constant supervision and control by the user. (…) Given the serious risks to users, Apple has developed an interim solution that would allow virtual assistants to safely access the same features and capabilities that Siri AI offers on devices in the EU. Apple also presented a plan to introduce Siri AI in the EU, with a phased rollout over 18 months. The European Commission refused. In fact, the European Commission did not agree to any of Apple’s proposals.”
Finally, the American company included the strongest statement in the entire press release:
“Given the obvious risks to users in the EU and the fact that regulators do not recognize these risks, no date has yet been set for the launch of Siri AI in the EU market.”
The truth lies somewhere in the middle, but where is the middle?
What caught my attention most quickly in this conflict is the hostile attitude of both sides. In its press release, Apple openly attacks the DMA and accuses the European Union of failing to recognize the risks posed by granting other AI models the same access to user data that Siri AI has. Meanwhile, the attitude of spokesperson Thomas Regnier when responding to a journalist’s question also reveals a downright combative stance toward the Cupertino-based company and the Commission’s readiness to stand its ground.
Regnier claims that Apple, as a gatekeeper, wants to shut out competing AI models from the iOS market. During the conference, he stated outright:
“Apple was simply unable to develop interoperability solutions that would meet the EU’s basic privacy and security standards.”
He later added:
“Apple has requested an exemption from the interoperability obligations under the DMA.”
And here’s a key nuance that sets the two narratives apart. Apple presents the matter as if the Commission had rejected a ready-made technical solution. Regnier suggests otherwise: instead of submitting a legally compliant interoperability mechanism for review, Apple simply sought a blanket, 18-month exemption from its obligations, which the Commission refused to grant. The Cupertino-based company, however, claims that it proposed a solution to this problem in the form of the Trusted System Agent, which the European Union allegedly rejected.
This illustrates the scale of the conflict between the Silicon Valley company and Brussels. Both sides are openly accusing each other in broad daylight, without even a hint of diplomatic language.
It is highly likely that behind-the-scenes talks have been going on for some time. I doubt that Apple would be naive enough to blindly develop such a service without realizing that some of its elements might conflict with EU law. The company announced its proposed solution to the problem, but Brussels regulators deemed it unsatisfactory.
However, this does not explain either the scale of the conflict or its highly public nature. It seems that there are more strands to this dispute than meet the eye.
One thing I’m certain of—this conflict is part of a larger geopolitical dispute over artificial intelligence and reflects the European Union’s ambition to build competitive AI labs capable of competing on equal footing with their counterparts in the United States and China. At the moment, however, Mistral AI, Aleph Alpha, and Poland’s Bielik still lag significantly behind Anthropic and OpenAI.
The EU’s determination is evident. However, only time will tell whether the strategy it has chosen is the right one and will prove effective.