Apple's announcement that its Siri AI will be delayed in the European Union due to the Digital Markets Act (DMA) has visibly irritated the European Commission. The move is the latest in a pattern where tech companies choose to withhold or postpone features in the EU, citing regulatory uncertainty. Last year, Meta and Google restricted political ads in response to the EU's Regulation on the Transparency and Targeting of Political Advertising (TTPA), drawing criticism from politicians and NGOs.
The Commission's spokesperson was unequivocal at a recent press conference: “The decision not to allow Siri AI is Apple’s and Apple’s only. Absolutely nothing in the DMA prohibits Apple from introducing new products in the EU. What Apple, however, is not allowed to do, just like any other gatekeeper, is to close the market.” The spokesperson added that Apple had failed to develop interoperability solutions meeting EU privacy and security standards, and instead requested an exemption—which the Commission refused. “EU law is non-negotiable,” they said, comparing the DMA to speed limits enforced by a police officer.
Moving Goalposts or Clear Rules?
The analogy with driving rules is meant to simplify the debate, but it obscures a key difference. Driving rules are fixed and predictable, whereas the DMA relies on dynamic, case-by-case enforcement by the European Commission. Gatekeepers like Apple, Google, and Meta face ex-ante obligations—such as interoperability and bans on self-preferencing—but the practical implementation is subject to continuous evaluation. The Commission can adopt non-compliance decisions, perform market investigations, update obligations, and even order interim measures. This flexibility, intended to keep pace with fast-moving digital markets, has been described by some tech giants as a system of “moving goalposts.”
For smaller startups and scaleups, the DMA was supposed to level the playing field. Many founders complain that big tech companies—whether in automotive, pharma, or digital platforms—use unfair contractual practices to block access to data or distribution channels. A game developer might struggle to get featured in an app store; a data startup might find it impossible to buy vehicle data from a manufacturer like Mercedes. The Data Act, which became applicable in 2025, was designed to address such imbalances, but early impressions are mixed. Few growth-oriented companies are willing to challenge larger players, especially European ones, for fear of damaging future relationships.
The DMA, however, targets mostly non-European gatekeepers—with the notable exception of Dutch-based Booking.com. This has led some EU politicians to celebrate fines imposed on US tech companies, framing the DMA as a tool for “tech sovereignty.” The European Commission itself sometimes slips into this language, even as it denies that the regulation discriminates against American firms.
But beyond the rhetoric, what are the measurable benefits for European consumers and founders? The Commission recently published a three-year review of the DMA, concluding that the direction is positive, gatekeeper behavior is changing, but more enforcement is needed. The 83-page document, however, offers few concrete metrics on economic gains or user experience improvements. Critics argue that while the law has forced some changes—such as allowing users to uninstall pre-installed apps or choose default browsers—the overall impact on competition and innovation remains unclear.
As the EU pushes forward with its digital agenda, including the digital trade pact with South Korea, the tension between regulation and innovation is likely to persist. The DMA’s long-term success will depend not just on fines and enforcement, but on whether it can deliver tangible, everyday benefits to European users and businesses.
