BRUSSELS | Apple and European regulators are trading blame over the delayed release of Siri AI on iPhones and iPads in the European Union, turning a product rollout into a test of how the Digital Markets Act applies to artificial-intelligence assistants. Apple says the law’s interoperability requirements would expose sensitive device functions and personal information to rival assistants before adequate protections are ready. The European Commission says Apple chose not to build a compliant system and sought an 18-month exception the law does not provide. European users have no announced date for the full iOS and iPadOS release.
Apple unveiled Siri AI as a more contextual assistant capable of working across applications, understanding information on the screen and using personal content such as messages, calendars, contacts and photographs. Those features require deeper operating-system access than a conventional app. Apple argues that giving third-party assistants comparable capabilities creates privacy and security risk when developers may handle data differently.
The Digital Markets Act designates large platforms as gatekeepers and requires certain services to support interoperability and fair access. Regulators want competing assistants to function meaningfully rather than depend on whatever limited interfaces Apple chooses to provide. The Commission’s position is that privacy and competition can coexist through technical safeguards and that Apple bears responsibility for designing them.
Allowing an exemption could permit a gatekeeper to introduce a powerful new service while denying rivals the access needed to compete. Apple responds that regulators rejected its proposed Trusted System Agent, an intermediary intended to allow access in a controlled way. The Commission says the proposal did not satisfy the legal obligation. The complete technical submissions and objections have not been made public, leaving consumers to evaluate competing summaries.
The disagreement is partly about who carries the engineering burden. Apple says it cannot safely launch until a secure access framework is approved. Regulators say a company with control of the operating system cannot invoke its own design decisions as a reason to exclude competitors. Both positions may contain valid concerns. A technically feasible solution can still preserve too much platform advantage, while a legally broad access demand can still create real security exposure.
Interoperability does not necessarily mean unrestricted access. Operating systems can use permission prompts, scoped interfaces, secure enclaves, on-device processing, rate limits and audit logs. Apple already provides frameworks allowing apps to request sensitive information under user control. The question is whether those mechanisms can support an assistant capable of performing actions across applications without creating a privileged pathway available only to Apple.
General assistants create greater aggregation risk than ordinary apps. A calendar application may need calendar access. A broad assistant may request calendars, messages, photographs, location, contacts, smart-home controls and payment functions. Combining those permissions can reveal relationships and behavior that no individual permission exposes. Security design must evaluate the cumulative access rather than treat every data request in isolation.
Apple’s privacy case is strongest when it identifies specific threat models, information flows and technical limitations. General claims that competition rules endanger users are less persuasive without evidence showing what would be exposed and why current controls cannot prevent it. The Commission’s position is strongest when it provides detailed compliance guidance. Engineers need a workable pathway, not only a statement that the legal obligation exists.
The delay affects developers as well as consumers. European developers cannot test or integrate the same iPhone and iPad features available elsewhere. That can slow local app innovation and create fragmented products. Apple may cite the fragmentation as evidence of regulatory cost. The Commission may say the company created the cost by refusing to comply. Users receive less functionality regardless of which institution assigns blame.
The platform differences complicate Apple’s argument. The company says some Siri AI functions will be available in the EU on other platforms while the iPhone and iPad release remains delayed. Apple can argue that the legal obligations and security architecture differ by platform. Regulators and competitors will examine whether the difference is genuinely technical or reflects the market power of mobile devices.
The dispute will influence other gatekeepers. Google, Microsoft, Meta and independent AI companies are building assistants that connect across services. If Apple receives a long exemption, others may seek similar treatment. If regulators demand broad interoperability without detailed safeguards, companies may delay products or challenge the rules in court. The outcome will help define whether AI assistants are treated as ordinary platform functions or a new regulated gateway.
Consumers need clear disclosure about which features are unavailable, which devices are affected and how existing Siri continues to work. Apple should avoid using product notices mainly as political advocacy. The Commission should explain that interoperability does not require users to install or authorize a rival assistant. Consent and default settings will determine whether the policy creates real choice or additional complexity.
Competition benefits could be substantial. A rival assistant with fair access may offer better language support, specialized workflows, disability tools or a different privacy model. Without interoperability, Apple can use exclusive system access to make Siri more useful regardless of model quality. The DMA is intended to prevent control of the device from deciding the assistant market before competition begins.
Security costs are also real. Every interface becomes a possible attack surface, and assistant actions can have consequences beyond displaying information. Strong authentication, transaction confirmation, revocation and limits on sensitive actions are necessary. Regulators should permit proportionate safeguards as long as they apply fairly and are not designed to exclude competitors.
Data minimization should be a common objective. An assistant should receive only the information required for a user-requested task and should not retain it without a clear purpose. On-device processing can reduce exposure. Cloud requests need encryption, retention rules and transparent disclosures. Apple’s own assistant should be evaluated under the same privacy principles applied to rivals.
Liability must also be clear. If a third-party assistant sends a message, unlocks a door or makes a purchase through Apple’s system, the user needs to know which company is responsible for an error. Contracts among the platform, assistant provider and app developer should allocate responsibility without forcing consumers through several complaint systems. Regulators can require clear attribution and redress.
Enterprise and government customers have additional concerns involving confidential data, device management and compliance. Organizations may disable assistants or approve only specified providers. Apple’s management tools and EU rules should allow restrictions based on legitimate security policies rather than commercial favoritism. Consumer interoperability does not require every managed device to expose every capability.
Accessibility communities should participate in testing. Voice assistants can be essential for people with visual, motor or cognitive disabilities. Delayed features may withhold meaningful access, while poorly designed permissions may create additional risk. Evaluation should include users who rely on assistants for daily tasks rather than assume everyone can switch to a touchscreen.
A regulatory sandbox or staged rollout could provide a path forward. Apple could begin with limited actions, certified providers, independent security testing and published milestones. Regulators may resist a certification system controlled entirely by Apple, while Apple may resist a process that allows competitors broad access before testing. Shared governance and measurable safeguards could reduce the conflict.
The economic stakes are substantial because the EU is a major market for Apple. A delayed feature can influence upgrade demand and developer investment. DMA penalties can reach a percentage of global turnover, but fines do not deliver the missing service. A technical agreement would provide more value to users than a prolonged cycle of delay, accusation and punishment.
The rhetoric from both sides risks obscuring the user’s interest. Apple presents itself as protecting privacy from rigid regulation. The Commission presents itself as protecting competition from a dominant platform. Users benefit from both privacy and choice. The policy challenge is to allow user-directed competition without turning a general assistant into a universal data-extraction channel.
Apple and the Commission should publish more of their technical proposals and objections, removing only genuine security details. Independent researchers could then assess whether the risks are solvable and whether the required access is proportionate. The public debate currently depends on selective descriptions from parties with institutional interests.
The final framework should be measured by outcomes: whether competing assistants can perform useful actions, whether permissions are understood, whether breaches occur and whether Apple’s service receives hidden advantages. Independent audits and compliance reports can turn an abstract dispute into evidence. Without measurement, each side can continue blaming the other for a result consumers cannot evaluate.
A temporary delay may be defensible if it produces safer and fairer architecture. An indefinite delay used to pressure regulators would be harder to justify. The Commission should likewise avoid requiring deployment faster than risks can be tested. A published timetable with engineering milestones would allow developers and users to judge progress.
For now, the confirmed result is a regional delay with no announced iPhone or iPad date. Apple has not received the requested exemption, and the Commission rejects responsibility for the company’s decision. The outcome will shape not only Siri AI, but who can build the interface through which users ask devices to understand and act on their personal information.
Additional Reporting By: Reuters; Apple Newsroom; European Commission — Digital Markets Act; Reuters — Siri AI launch