Commission Says Siri AI Can Comply with EU Rules Without Compromising Safety in Dispute with Apple

The European Commission rejects the idea that EU rules would force Apple to reduce the safety of its products in order to launch the new Siri AI version. The dispute concerns the conditions under which competing assistants can use iPhone and iPad functions: Apple cites risks to user data, while the European executive maintains that the Digital Markets Act requires access under fair competitive conditions.

In brief

1.The Commission argues that opening access to competing assistants is compatible with protecting users. Its response does not announce a resolution to the dispute or a date for the launch of Siri AI in the EU on iPhone and iPad.

2.The regulation allows protections that are strictly necessary and proportionate. Apple must justify the restrictions it seeks to use to protect the integrity of the system.

3.European decisions in 2025 detailed access to functions such as notifications and file transfers. They clarify Apple's obligations, but do not constitute a finding of an infringement in the Siri case.

Apple announced in June that it was postponing Siri AI in the EU for iOS 27 and iPadOS 27. For macOS 27 and visionOS 27, the company planned to make the new version available in the Union as well. The announcement thus distinguishes between the operating systems; it does not describe a general European ban on Siri.

Regarding access by other assistants to data and applications, Apple says it proposed a security intermediary, Trusted System Agent, and a phased implementation over 18 months, which were rejected by the Commission. The briefing does not provide a public technical assessment of this architecture.

For the Commission, the competition issue arises if an Apple assistant can use operating-system functions to which rivals do not have comparable access. A user may install an alternative application, but the choice remains limited if it cannot use the functions necessary to provide an equivalent service. Interoperability is intended precisely to enable this kind of operation together with the platform, not merely the presence of an application in the store.

Article 6(7) of the Digital Markets Act allows measures that are strictly necessary and proportionate to protect the integrity of the operating system, virtual assistants, and the functions offered. The operator must justify them. Invoking security does not, therefore, end the dispute: it must be established which protections are necessary and whether they preserve the access provided for by the regulation.

The Commission has already applied this logic to other Apple functions. The specification decisions adopted in March 2025 concerned, among other things, notifications on connected smartwatches, wireless file transfers, and device connectivity. A second set of measures sought to make the process for requesting interoperability more transparent and predictable for developers. These are examples of how access translates into concrete requirements, without those decisions constituting a resolution of the current dispute concerning Siri.

Specification decisions clarify an operator's obligations and do not, in themselves, represent findings of an infringement or fines. Regarding Siri AI, the Commission's response in the briefing maintains the requirement that users of Apple products be able to choose competing AI services under equivalent conditions. It announces neither an agreement with the company nor an agreed date for the launch on iPhone and iPad in the EU.