Why Europe Won't Get the New Siri — And Why That's a Problem for the EU
When Apple unveiled its next-generation Siri powered by advanced artificial intelligence, users across the globe anticipated a major leap forward in how they interact with their devices. But for tens of millions of Apple users in Europe, that upgrade may not arrive anytime soon — and the reason has nothing to do with Apple's engineering capabilities. It has everything to do with Brussels.
The Washington Post editorial board recently published a pointed critique of the European Union's Digital Markets Act (DMA), arguing that its rigid, one-size-fits-all regulatory framework is actively preventing innovative technology from reaching European consumers. The piece raises uncomfortable questions about whether the EU's ambition to become a "regulatory superpower" is now working directly against the interests of the very people it was supposed to protect.
What the Digital Markets Act Actually Requires
The DMA was introduced with a genuinely admirable goal: to open up digital markets dominated by large technology platforms — so-called "gatekeepers" — and ensure fairer competition. In the era of app stores, browsers, and messaging platforms, the logic made sense. If a dominant company controls a platform, rivals should have fair access to it. That principle is hard to argue with.
The problem arises when you apply that same logic to AI assistants — a fundamentally different kind of technology.
Under the DMA's current interpretation, the moment Apple ships Siri AI to European users, any competing AI agent must be granted the same sweeping access to a user's messages, files, and chat history. The law treats AI integration the same way it treats a web browser or an app store — as a component that can simply be swapped in and out like a replaceable battery.
But AI assistants that tap into personal data don't work that way. Granting deep system-level access to an unknown third-party AI agent — without robust security architecture in place — creates serious and legitimate privacy risks for users.
Apple's Proposed Solution — and Why Brussels Said No
Apple did not walk away from the table without attempting a compromise. According to the company, it proposed implementing a software security layer specifically designed to make third-party AI access safe and auditable. Apple also offered a phased rollout approach, which would allow regulators and engineers to monitor the integration carefully before expanding access.
The European Commission reportedly rejected the proposal.
That rejection is the crux of the issue. As the Washington Post editorial board noted, Brussels insists the decision not to launch Siri AI in Europe is "Apple's and Apple's only." Technically, that is correct — nothing in the DMA text explicitly forbids the launch. But as the Post rightly observes, that framing is "wholly beside the point."
The DMA may not forbid Apple from launching a version of Siri AI in Europe. What it effectively forbids, however, is Apple launching the version of Siri AI they actually built — one designed with Apple's privacy architecture and security standards at its core. That distinction matters enormously, and it exposes a critical flaw in how the DMA is being enforced.
The Broader Folly: When Compliance Costs More Than Market Access Is Worth
The Washington Post's editorial raises a concern that goes far beyond any single product launch. It points to a structural problem with the EU's regulatory philosophy that is beginning to have measurable real-world consequences.
The EU's strategy was built on the premise that Europe represents a market too large and too lucrative for any major technology company to abandon. The thinking was that if Brussels set high enough regulatory standards, global tech firms would adapt their products to comply — and in doing so, effectively export European rules to the rest of the world. The EU would become, in the words of legal scholars, a "regulatory superpower."
That theory is now being tested, and the results are not encouraging. As the Post's editorial board put it: "When adapting a product for Europe costs more than European market access is worth, companies no longer comply. They simply leave out the feature."
That is precisely what is happening with Siri AI. Apple has not defied the DMA or challenged it in court — at least not on this issue. It has simply declined to ship the feature in Europe. European consumers lose access to an innovation available everywhere else in the world, and the EU's regulatory framework is left looking less like a global standard-setter and more like a regional barrier to technological progress.
What This Means for European Tech Users
For everyday Apple users in Europe, the immediate consequence is straightforward: they will not have access to the same AI-powered Siri experience available to users in the United States, the United Kingdom, and other markets. That gap is likely to widen as Apple and other AI developers continue rolling out new features that require deep device integration.
- European consumers miss out on cutting-edge AI features that competitors in other regions enjoy.
- The DMA's interoperability requirements, designed to increase competition, may instead reduce the quality of products available in Europe.
- Other technology companies watching the Apple situation may preemptively choose not to launch AI features in Europe, calculating that DMA compliance is simply not worth the cost.
- The EU's goal of fostering a competitive digital economy could be undermined by the very regulations intended to achieve it.
Rethinking Regulation for the Age of AI
None of this means the DMA was a mistake, or that regulating powerful technology platforms is wrong. There are genuine and serious concerns about the market power of large technology companies, and regulators around the world are right to grapple with them. The problem is not the intent behind the DMA — it is the execution and the refusal to adapt the law's logic to fundamentally new categories of technology.
AI assistants are not browsers. They are not app stores. They are deeply personal tools that operate at the intersection of a user's most sensitive data and their daily digital life. Applying blunt interoperability mandates to them — without adequate security frameworks — risks creating far more harm to consumers than the market concentration the DMA was designed to prevent.
The Washington Post's editorial is a useful reminder that good regulatory intentions can produce bad outcomes when the underlying assumptions of a law fail to keep pace with technological change. Europe's regulators would do well to take that warning seriously — before the gap between what European consumers can access and what the rest of the world enjoys grows any wider.
The new Siri is here. Europe just won't get to use it. That should be a wake-up call, not a talking point.