European Union regulators have opened a new investigation into Apple over whether the company’s App Store rules and iOS restrictions are impeding rival artificial intelligence services, according to the Financial Times, widening Brussels’ technology enforcement agenda into one of the most strategically important areas of the software market.

The probe, reported on April 28, focuses on whether Apple’s control of its mobile ecosystem restricts how third-party AI developers can reach users, integrate with device functions or compete with Apple’s own software services. The inquiry places the iPhone maker at the center of a regulatory debate that is shifting from conventional app-store economics toward the emerging AI interface layer, where digital assistants, search tools and productivity agents could become the main route through which consumers interact with apps and online services.

The investigation is expected to be assessed against the European Union’s Digital Markets Act, the bloc’s flagship platform regulation designed to make digital markets fairer and more contestable. The DMA requires designated “gatekeepers” to comply with obligations covering app distribution, self-preferencing, interoperability, data access and fair treatment of business users. Apple’s App Store, iOS and Safari have already been subject to DMA-related changes in the European market.

The European Commission has said the DMA is intended to prevent large digital platforms from using entrenched market positions to control access between businesses and consumers. Its public guidance states that gatekeepers such as Apple and Google must not impose unfair app-store access conditions and must allow developers more freedom over payments, distribution and user choice. Those principles are now being tested in a market where AI services increasingly depend on privileged access to operating-system functions, app permissions, default settings and user data flows.

For Apple, the case adds a fresh regulatory front to an already complex European compliance burden. The company has modified elements of its EU App Store policies, created options for alternative app marketplaces and changed rules around payment links and browser engines. It has also argued that many EU-mandated changes introduce privacy, security and fraud risks for users. Apple’s developer support pages describe its DMA implementation as a balance between legal compliance and safeguards intended to reduce what it sees as increased risks from opening parts of iOS.

The AI angle makes the inquiry more consequential than a narrow app-store fee dispute. AI assistants may need deep integration with contacts, email, calendars, maps, messaging, notifications, cameras, voice input and on-device models. If a platform owner gives its own assistant broader permissions, smoother defaults or superior access to system-level capabilities, regulators may view that as a new form of self-preferencing. Rival AI developers, meanwhile, could argue that limited access to device features weakens their ability to offer comparable products.

The case also lands as Brussels is pressing other major technology companies over AI competition. Reuters reported this week that EU regulators set out proposed measures for Google aimed at helping rival AI and search services gain fairer access to Android-related functions. That action reflected regulators’ concern that dominant mobile platforms could shape the development of AI assistants by controlling which services can perform tasks directly on users’ devices.

Apple’s position differs from Google’s in important respects. Apple operates a more vertically integrated hardware-and-software ecosystem, controls iOS app distribution more tightly and markets privacy and security as central product features. That architecture has historically supported a premium user experience and a profitable services business, but it also gives regulators a clearer target when assessing whether third-party services can compete on equal terms inside the iPhone environment.

The investigation may examine several practical questions: whether AI apps can access the same operating-system functions as Apple services; whether App Store review rules disadvantage certain AI products; whether default settings make it difficult for users to choose alternative AI assistants; and whether Apple’s policies restrict developers from steering users to external subscriptions, web-based AI services or competing payment options. The final scope will depend on the Commission’s formal legal theory and evidence gathered from developers, competitors and Apple.

Any finding against Apple could carry substantial consequences. Under the DMA, the European Commission can impose fines of up to 10% of a company’s worldwide annual turnover for non-compliance, and higher penalties for repeat infringements. More importantly for Apple’s business model, regulators could require behavioral changes that affect how AI apps are distributed, integrated or surfaced on iPhones in the EU. Those remedies could set precedents for other jurisdictions considering platform rules for AI.

Apple’s services segment has become a key pillar of its investment case, generating recurring revenue from the App Store, subscriptions, payments, advertising, cloud storage and licensing arrangements. While hardware still accounts for the largest share of sales, services margins are structurally higher and closely watched by equity analysts. Any regulatory constraint on App Store economics or default platform privileges can therefore influence investor assumptions about long-term margin resilience.

The market reaction may depend less on the immediate existence of the probe than on its remedy risk. EU investigations can take months or longer, and not all inquiries result in major penalties. However, Apple’s recent European regulatory history has made investors more sensitive to incremental enforcement. The company has already faced EU pressure over app-store steering restrictions, alternative distribution options and access to core iOS functions. A case tied directly to AI could suggest that regulators are prepared to intervene before dominant mobile platforms lock in the next generation of digital interfaces.

Developers are also likely to watch the inquiry closely. AI start-ups and enterprise software providers increasingly rely on mobile access to deploy assistants, copilots, search tools and agentic workflows. A more open iOS framework in Europe could improve distribution prospects for smaller AI firms, but it could also create technical and compliance complexity. Developers may need to navigate different app rules across regions, with the EU receiving features or distribution models not available elsewhere.

The regulatory pressure comes as Apple is trying to strengthen its AI strategy after rivals moved aggressively into generative AI. Microsoft, Google, Meta, Amazon and OpenAI have pushed AI assistants and model integrations across cloud, productivity, search and consumer platforms. Apple has emphasized privacy-focused AI features and on-device processing, but investors have questioned whether the company can convert its installed base into an AI advantage without drawing further antitrust scrutiny.

Europe’s approach is increasingly distinct from the U.S. model. The EU has moved ahead with the DMA and AI Act, creating a regulatory framework that combines platform access rules with risk-based AI governance. U.S. enforcement remains more dependent on antitrust litigation and agency actions, while Congress has not passed comparable national platform legislation. That divergence means Apple and other large technology companies may face a fragmented global compliance landscape, with Europe acting as the most active test market for platform remedies.

The inquiry also highlights a broader policy shift: regulators no longer see app stores only as payment tollgates. They are now treating mobile operating systems as strategic infrastructure for AI competition. The winner in AI may not simply be the company with the best model, but the company that controls the device, default assistant, app permissions and user identity layer. For Brussels, that creates a risk that existing platform power could be transferred into the AI market before rivals have a meaningful chance to compete.

Apple is expected to defend its approach by emphasizing user security, privacy protection and the technical risks of granting deep device access to third-party software. The company has repeatedly argued that the DMA forces trade-offs that could expose users to malware, scams, abusive data collection and degraded product quality. Regulators, however, are likely to test whether those concerns justify restrictions in every case or whether Apple can design secure interfaces that still allow rival AI services to compete effectively.

The dispute may become especially important for enterprise technology customers. Corporate users are adopting AI assistants across email, collaboration software, customer service, coding and workflow automation. If employees primarily access those tools through iPhones and iPads, the terms of mobile integration affect productivity software vendors and cloud AI providers. A more restrictive Apple framework could favor native or Apple-approved experiences; a more open framework could support deeper integration by Microsoft, Google, OpenAI-backed products and specialized enterprise AI vendors.

For the broader technology sector, the new Apple probe reinforces that AI regulation is not limited to model safety, copyright or data governance. Competition policy is emerging as a central pillar. Authorities are asking whether incumbent platforms can bundle AI into dominant ecosystems, limit interoperability or require developers to operate under commercial terms that weaken independent alternatives. That line of enforcement could affect cloud platforms, app stores, browsers, search engines and productivity suites.

The Commission’s next steps will determine whether the case develops into a formal non-compliance proceeding, a request for information, settlement-style commitments or a broader DMA enforcement action. Developers and competitors may be asked to provide evidence on App Store review outcomes, access requests, API limitations, rejected features or commercial terms. Apple may submit technical and legal arguments defending the proportionality of its rules.

Even before any final decision, the probe is likely to increase pressure on Apple to show that its AI rollout in Europe does not disadvantage third-party providers. That may require clearer developer documentation, broader access to certain APIs, more transparent app-review criteria or additional user-choice mechanisms for AI assistants. Each adjustment could influence the user experience on iOS and the commercial balance between Apple and outside software providers.

The investigation marks a significant escalation in the EU’s campaign to regulate digital gatekeepers at the point where mobile platforms and AI converge. For Apple, the risk is not only a potential fine, but a precedent that could reshape how the company integrates AI into the iPhone ecosystem. For rivals, the case offers a potential opening to challenge one of the most valuable distribution channels in consumer technology. For investors, it adds another layer of uncertainty around Apple’s services growth, European compliance costs and the competitive structure of the next AI cycle.