Apple is now openly chiding the European Union for demanding better user privacy under the Digital Services Act — while mandating Apple remove privacy features under the Digital Markets Act.

Apple and the European Union have long gone from claiming cooperation over the Digital Markets Act (DMA), to arguing the case in the Luxembourg General Court. A key disagreement has always been that Apple claims the EU's enforcement of the DMA radically harms users by demanding that rivals get unfettered access to private data.

Now Apple has revealed that, separately, the EU has recently complained that it is not protecting users under the Digital Services Act (DSA). This is a different act which is concerned with online privacy rather than the DMA's requirements over interoperability and giving rivals free access to Apple technology.

However, both the DSA and the DMA are now criticizing Apple over contradictory privacy and user issues. Apple rightly says that the EU is trying to have it both ways.

"We are concerned that these new inquiries are cynical attempts to distract from the core problems caused by the Commission's misguided DMA enforcement efforts," the letter says.

Apple fires back, again

In an letter complaining to the EU seen by AppleInsider, Apple says that it has received Requests for Information (RFIs) saying the regulator believes its privacy is inadequate.

Specifically, Apple quotes parts of the RFIs which say the EU suspects that it "has not put in place reasonable, proportionate and effective mitigation measures tailored to this specific systemic risk [of the] dissemination of illegal content related to financial scams through App Store]".

A separate RFI says the European Commission also suspects that Apple "has not put in place appropriate and proportionate measures to ensure a high level of safety and security of minors on their service."

Apple's open letter does go into great detail about its years of curating the App Store, and its continual efforts to ensure privacy and security for all users.

But then it also really just says oh, come on. "We find it difficult to square the premise of these RFIs under the DSA with the Commission's radical enforcement of the Digital Markets Act (DMA)," says the letter, "which has continually undercut Apple's ability to protect its users."

Apple's disdain for the competing legislative efforts in the letter is palpable. The company is clear about what it thinks about being criticized for not protecting users from financial scams under the terms of the DSA, given what it had to do to comply with the DMA.

"The Commission has required Apple to allow developers to link out of their apps — to websites, other apps, and third-party app marketplaces — with no meaningful guardrails," says Apple. "This exposes users to fraud and scams on those third-party platforms that we cannot control or even monitor — even for apps distributed through the App Store."

"The Commission's requirements likewise fundamentally undercut many of the trusted, industry-leading tools that we currently offer to help parents protect their children," it continues, "and the Commission has in turn refused to permit Apple to institute key safeguards, inevitably raising the risks to children on Apple's platforms despite Apple's best efforts otherwise."

Apple has reportedly invested hundreds of thousands of engineering hours to comply with the EU. It's always made it known that it disagrees with much of the EU's DMA, but for a long time it kept up the story that it and the regulators were working together.

Not any more.

This open letter also goes beyond the RFI suspicions, and comments on the timing of it. These suspicions came as the EU is officially re-examining the DMA, but seemingly has no intention of actually updating it.

As well as these accusations, the full letter runs to 5,500 words of rebuttals over the EU's privacy complaints. It's signed by Kyle Andeer, vice president of Apple Legal. He's previously spoken in person at what was reportedly a heated exchange at the EU in July 2025.

The European Union has yet to respond publicly.