i keep coming back to "appears". it's the worst word i can think of to use. i wonder if they went one by one while editing:

no weasel word: doesn't work, probably not true
say "would not even be useful for" instead: obviously false
"we believe that": no we don't
"appears": doesn't mean anything, puts the blame on an unspecified 3rd party, perfect

The entire reason for the original proceedings is apple preventing anyone from making a competitive smartwatch or similar. I suspect that the vision pro host software has access to all the referenced APIs, and the apple watch host software has access to most of them.

Apple might be able to get the Commission to allow limiting the entitlements to just the Quest host app, which would have limited users. Apple, of course, insists on making this stuff per developer then blames the Commission for a decision Apple made themselves.

In fact, if Apple had made a reasonable policy in the first place that wouldn't be in this mess, but their strategy is to delay implementation, make sure any implementation does not meet the goals of the regulations, then blame the regulators for Apple making their own product worse.

(okay, this is how every big company in the public eye deals with regulations)