Document 1 · released 27 July 2026
A released email shows Apple asking the President’s Cabinet to arrange a call with Tim Cook. The attached paper says every proposed route to an EU launch had been rejected. That is Apple’s account. The documents needed to test it remain partly undisclosed.
What changed
Until this release, the public argument was mostly a contest between Apple’s statements and the Commission’s general position on the Digital Markets Act.
The email adds a concrete fact: Apple escalated the Siri AI dispute to the President’s Cabinet and sought a Cook–von der Leyen call.
It also exposes the central gap. We can see Apple’s allegation, but not the proposals it says were rejected or the Commission’s reasons for rejecting them.
Read the email, attachment and document notes →I
Apple wanted to launch a more capable Siri in the EU. Under the DMA, the Commission was examining how competing assistants should be able to work with iPhones and iPads.
Apple says it proposed ways to launch while protecting privacy and security. According to Apple’s paper, the Commission rejected all of them and expected rival assistants to receive equivalent access to important system capabilities.
The Commission’s disclosed files do not contain its substantive response. DG COMP has separately confirmed that relevant material exists in DMA investigation files, but refused access to every document, including partial access.
II
These points are directly supported by released documents.
The present release does not establish these claims.
Still missing
III
The public-safe source files and a document-by-document account of what each reply adds.
The email, Apple’s Siri AI position paper, the Tim Cook letter, three Cabinet meeting records and the disclosure decision.
Read documents and notes →
The competition department confirms responsive DMA investigation material, but releases none of it.
Read decision and notes →
A limited answer about the Legal Service’s own files—not the Commission as a whole.
Read reply and notes →
DG COMM reports no matching documents or direct Apple correspondence in its own files.
Read decision and notes →V
Request scope, service tracker, chronology, method and every unresolved question.
On 10 June 2026, an access-to-documents request sought correspondence between the European Commission and Apple about Siri AI / Apple Intelligence and the Digital Markets Act. The Commission split it across five services, each searching its own files.
The request covered Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd, Apple Operations Europe Ltd and their representatives from 1 June 2024 to 10 June 2026.
| Reference | Service | Status | What the answer means |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2026/2983 | DG COMP | Full refusal | Relevant documents are in DMA investigation files; all access refused. |
| 2026/2984 | DG CONNECT | No additional documents | Says it holds no additional responsive documents beyond DG COMP’s set. |
| 2026/2985 | Secretariat-General | Partial grant | Released Apple’s email and paper, the Tim Cook letter, and identified three public Cabinet meeting records. |
| 2026/2987 | DG COMM | No documents | No matching documents or direct Apple correspondence in its files. |
| 2026/2986 | Legal Service | No documents | The Commission’s in-house lawyers found no matching document in their files. |
DG COMP handles competition enforcement.
DG CONNECT handles digital and technology policy and jointly enforces the DMA with DG COMP.
Secretariat-General is the Commission’s central coordinating service; this search included the President’s Cabinet.
DG COMM is the public communications department.
Legal Service is the Commission’s internal legal adviser.
EASE is the Commission’s access-to-documents case system.
Directly stated in or shown by a published document.
A claim made by Apple, not adopted as a Commission finding.
A reasoned reading of what the documents do and do not show.
Not answered by any document currently held.
Originals are preserved unaltered. Public copies are redacted only where required for personal data and are flattened so hidden text cannot be recovered. The site identifies which Commission service replied and never treats one service’s answer as a reply from the Commission as a whole.