Apple took the Siri AI dispute to von der Leyen’s Cabinet

The release establishes that Apple brought its Siri AI argument directly to President Ursula von der Leyen’s Cabinet and sought a call with Tim Cook. It also establishes what Apple alleged. It does not contain the Commission’s substantive answer.

The story in one minute

On 9 June 2026, after announcing Siri AI, Apple followed up with members of the President’s Cabinet. The email asked them to find time for a call between Tim Cook and von der Leyen and attached a paper cataloguing features Apple said had been delayed or withheld in the EU because of DMA interoperability requirements.

The most consequential passage concerns Siri AI. Apple says the Commission rejected all of its proposals for an EU launch and would require competing virtual assistants to receive equivalent access to iOS and iPadOS capabilities. Apple presents that as an unacceptable privacy and security risk.

That is a serious allegation made directly to the Commission. But it remains Apple’s allegation. The release does not show the proposals themselves, the Commission’s response, or an order prohibiting Apple from launching Siri AI.

Six documents, one evidence trail

What the email adds

The email is more than a recycled press statement. It shows the path of escalation: Apple briefed Cabinet members, referred to an earlier Tim Cook letter, attached a focused Article 6(7) paper and asked for direct contact with the Commission President.

It also connects two conversations. Much of the email concerns Apple’s new child-safety tools, matching the 3 June meeting minutes. Siri AI then appears as the second major issue, with Apple pointing the Cabinet to its public announcement and the attached position paper.

What Apple says happened

Apple’s paper says its teams developed plans to bring Siri AI to EU users while protecting devices from risks associated with unmanaged third-party assistants. It says the Commission rejected every proposal and interpreted Article 6(7) as requiring any virtual assistant to receive the same access as Siri AI as soon as Apple launched.

Apple concludes that there is no current timeline for Siri AI on EU iPhones and iPads. It contrasts those devices with Mac and Vision Pro, which it says are not subject to the same DMA requirements.

Why the withheld DG COMP files now matter even more

DG COMP has confirmed that it holds responsive material in DMA investigation files but refuses full and partial access. The Secretariat-General release demonstrates that Apple-originated material can be identified, described and disclosed with targeted personal data redactions.

More importantly, Apple’s allegation creates a question that cannot be answered by Apple’s paper alone: what did the Commission reject, and why? The confirmatory application against DG COMP’s blanket refusal will seek at least document categories, basic metadata and meaningful partial access.

The honest conclusion

The evidence now supports a narrower and more interesting story than either slogan: the Commission did not disclose a formal Siri AI ban; Apple did confront the Commission over an unresolved interoperability dispute and then chose not to launch on EU iPhones and iPads.

Whether that choice was a necessary response to genuine security risks or a refusal to give rival assistants equivalent access remains unresolved. The answer is likely in the documents that DG COMP has withheld. DG CONNECT has since said that it holds no additional responsive documents beyond DG COMP’s set.