Open investigation Ombudsman inquiry opened 14 Oct 2026 Deadline for the Commission: 4 Nov 2026 16 October 2026

Document 1 · released 27 July 2026

Apple took its Siri dispute to von der Leyen. The Commission’s answer is still missing.

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.

First page of the released Apple email to President von der Leyen’s Cabinet
Released Apple email, 9 June 2026. Personal data redacted by the Commission and in the public-safe copy. Open PDF ↗

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

The dispute, in plain English

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

What the record supports

On the record

These points are directly supported by released documents.

  • Apple sought a Cook–von der Leyen call about Siri AI.
  • Apple told the Commission that all proposed EU launch paths had been rejected.
  • DG COMP says it holds responsive material in DMA investigation files.
  • The Secretariat-General identified six documents in senior Commission files.

Not on the record

The present release does not establish these claims.

  • There is no disclosed formal Commission ban on Siri AI.
  • Apple’s legal and technical account has not been independently confirmed.
  • The documents do not show whether its security objections were justified.
  • They also do not show that Apple used the EU merely as a pretext for delay.

Still missing

The evidence that would decide the argument

  • Apple’s actual launch proposals
  • The Commission’s response and legal reasoning
  • The exact shared DG COMP/DG CONNECT document set

III

Source documents

The public-safe source files and a document-by-document account of what each reply adds.

First page of Apple’s released position paper about Siri AI and DMA Article 6(7)
27 and 30 July 2026 · Secretariat-General · 7 PDFs

Apple’s message to von der Leyen’s Cabinet

The email, Apple’s Siri AI position paper, the Tim Cook letter, three Cabinet meeting records and the disclosure decision.

Read documents and notes →
Partial grant
Redacted first page of the European Ombudsman letter opening inquiry 2029/2026/ACB
14 October 2026 · European Ombudsman · inquiry 2029/2026/ACB

Ombudsman opens inquiry; Commission asked to decide by 4 November

The Ombudsman asked the Commission for an explicit confirmatory decision by 4 November 2026. If the delay persists or the access granted is unsatisfactory, she intends to review the documents.

Read the letter →
Inquiry opened
First page of the DG COMP refusal that is under confirmatory review
27–28 August 2026 · Secretariat-General · correspondence

Confirmatory deadline of 17 August admitted as missed

After a chase on the expired time-limit, SG.A2 said it still has no final position and that consultations, including the Legal Service, are ongoing. No new deadline was set.

Read the correspondence →
Deadline missed
Redacted first page of the DG COMP refusal letter
10 July 2026 · DG COMP · 1 PDF

Relevant files acknowledged; all access refused

The competition department confirms responsive DMA investigation material, but releases none of it.

Read decision and notes →
Full refusal
First page of the Legal Service reply letter
24 June 2026 · Legal Service · 1 PDF

No matching document in the Legal Service’s files

A limited answer about the Legal Service’s own files—not the Commission as a whole.

Read reply and notes →
No documents
Redacted first page of the DG COMM decision letter
23 July 2026 · DG COMM · 1 PDF

No matching document in DG COMM’s files

DG COMM reports no matching documents or direct Apple correspondence in its own files.

Read decision and notes →
No documents

IV

What happens next

DG CONNECT

The digital-policy department says it holds no additional responsive documents beyond the DG COMP set. It does not say that no responsive documents exist.

DG COMP

The confirmatory review was registered on 27 July with a 17 August deadline. The Secretariat-General has admitted that deadline was missed. On 14 October the European Ombudsman opened an inquiry and asked the Commission to decide by 4 November 2026. Read the Ombudsman’s letter →

The Cook letter

The previously missing letter is now released. It concerns child safety and a requested call, not Siri AI or DMA interoperability.

The central gap remains the Commission’s undisclosed assessment of Apple’s Siri AI proposals. New documents and decisions will be added here as they arrive.

V

Complete case file

Request scope, service tracker, chronology, method and every unresolved question.

The requestWhat was requested, from whom, and for which period

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.

  • Siri AI
  • Apple Intelligence
  • AI assistants / agents
  • EU availability
  • Digital Markets Act
  • Article 6(7)
  • Exemption / derogation
  • Grace period
  • Staged rollout
Legal basis
Regulation (EC) No 1049/2001
Filed
10 June 2026
Core question
Did anyone block or delay Siri AI in the EU, and on what grounds?
Services searched
DG COMP, DG CONNECT, Secretariat-General, DG COMM and Legal Service
Service-by-service trackerWhich Commission department answered what
ReferenceServiceStatusWhat the answer means
2026/2983DG COMP Full refusal · confirmatory overdue · Ombudsman inquiry Relevant documents are in DMA investigation files; all access refused. Confirmatory deadline of 17 Aug admitted as missed. Ombudsman inquiry opened 14 Oct; Commission asked to decide by 4 Nov 2026.
2026/2984DG CONNECT No additional documents Says it holds no additional responsive documents beyond DG COMP’s set.
2026/2985Secretariat-General Partial grant Released Apple’s email and paper, the Tim Cook letter, and identified three public Cabinet meeting records.
2026/2987DG COMM No documents No matching documents or direct Apple correspondence in its files.
2026/2986Legal 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.

Complete dated case logEvery registration, extension, reply and pending action
  1. 2026-06-10Request filed, registered and split across five Commission services. Initial deadline: 1 July.
  2. 2026-06-24Legal Service identifies no matching document in its own files.
  3. 2026-06-29DG COMP extends its deadline to 23 July.
  4. 2026-07-01DG CONNECT and DG COMM extend their deadlines to 23 July.
  5. 2026-07-01Secretariat-General extends after consulting third parties. Its email omits the date; the calculated 15-working-day deadline was 23 July.
  6. 2026-07-10DG COMP refuses all access, including partial access. Confirmatory-application deadline: 3 August.
  7. 2026-07-23DG CONNECT misses its extended deadline. It says a reply is about to come but sets no new deadline.
  8. 2026-07-23DG COMM identifies no matching document or direct Apple correspondence in its files.
  9. 2026-07-27Secretariat-General partially grants access. Apple email and paper released; three Cabinet meeting records linked.
  10. 2026-07-27DG COMP confirmatory application filed. Sent 21:25 CEST; challenges the blanket DMA-file refusal.
  11. 2026-07-27Secretariat-General registers the confirmatory application. Stated time-limit: 17 August 2026.
  12. 2026-07-30Secretariat-General supplies the previously referenced Tim Cook letter. It concerns child safety and a requested call, not Siri AI or DMA interoperability.
  13. 2026-07-30DG CONNECT issues its substantive decision. It says no additional responsive documents are held beyond DG COMP’s set.
  14. 2026-08-17Confirmatory time-limit expires. No decision and no Article 8(2) extension notice received.
  15. 2026-08-27Applicant chases the overdue confirmatory decision in EASE 2026/2983.
  16. 2026-08-28SG.A2 admits the 17 August deadline has been surpassed. Says no final position yet; Legal Service and other consultations still ongoing; no new deadline. Correspondence
  17. 2026-09-10Complaint lodged with the European Ombudsman about the overdue confirmatory decision.
  18. 2026-10-14European Ombudsman opens inquiry 2029/2026/ACB. Commission asked for an explicit confirmatory decision by 4 November 2026; document review intended if the delay persists. Letter
How claims are assessedFacts, Apple’s claims, analysis and open questions
Fact

Directly stated in or shown by a published document.

Apple states

A claim made by Apple, not adopted as a Commission finding.

Analysis

A reasoned reading of what the documents do and do not show.

Open question

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.

All remaining open questionsThe precise evidence gaps still being pursued
  • Did Apple ask for an exemption, derogation, deferral, grace period or staged rollout?
  • What technical compliance paths did Apple propose, and why were they rejected or declined?
  • Did the Commission reject, qualify or challenge Apple’s position, and what role did DMA Article 6(7) play?
  • How many responsive documents does DG COMP hold, and what are their titles, dates and correspondents?
  • What is the exact shared DG COMP/DG CONNECT document set, and does DG CONNECT have access to it?