The European Commission on Thursday announced two landmark decisions under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) that will force Google to significantly alter its Android operating system and search business. The measures, which are binding specification measures rather than fines, require Google to allow rival artificial intelligence assistants to operate on Android with the same access as its own Gemini assistant, and to share certain search data with competing search engines and AI chatbots. The Commission hopes these requirements will increase user choice and foster competition in the fast-moving AI and search markets.
Rival AI on Android
The first decision addresses the competitive imbalance in AI assistants on Android. Currently, non-Google assistants like Amazon's Alexa, Microsoft's Copilot, or smaller European startups face significant restrictions. They cannot be set as the default voice assistant on Android devices, cannot be activated hands-free with a wake word, and lack the ability to perform actions inside other apps. For example, users cannot say "Hey Alexa, book a taxi via Uber" directly from the home screen. Google's own Gemini, by contrast, enjoys full system privileges. The Commission found that this self-preferencing harms competition, particularly given that Android powers roughly 60% of all smartphones in the European Union. To remedy this, Google must allow users to choose any preferred AI assistant as the system default and enable that assistant to be activated by voice, even when the phone is locked. The assistant must also be able to interact with third-party apps, such as making restaurant reservations, setting reminders, or suggesting replies. Google has until July 2027 to implement these changes. The timeline, though long, reflects the technical complexity of modifying the Android kernel and ensuring security. The Commission is also monitoring whether Google imposes any new barriers through software updates or licensing agreements with phone manufacturers.
Sharing search data
The second decision targets Google's dominant position in online search. Under the DMA, gatekeepers must provide third parties with access to the same data they use to improve their own services. The Commission specified that Google must share anonymized search data with rival search engines and AI chatbots that rely on web data for training. This includes click-and-query data, which helps algorithms understand what users find relevant. The aim, according to Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager, is to "rebalance the playing field" and allow newcomers to compete effectively. However, the Commission also introduced strict safeguards to address privacy and security concerns. Data sharing will start in January 2027, giving Google time to design anonymization systems. Records containing rare or sensitive details (e.g., health queries, political opinions) will be suppressed. Users will be grouped into bundles of at least 1,000 individuals to prevent re-identification, and all personal identifiers such as IP addresses and device IDs will be removed. Only companies that pass a vetting process and present credible plans to improve search quality will be eligible to receive the data. These firms must also agree to independent audits to ensure they do not misuse the information. Crucially, Google retains a veto over which firms receive data if they pose serious security or national security risks. This compromise aims to balance openness with protection against malicious actors.
Google objects
Google's reaction was predictably critical. Kent Walker, the company's President of Global Affairs, issued a strongly worded statement arguing that the decisions "risk undermining vital privacy and security guardrails for millions of Europeans." He claimed that the data-sharing requirement could expose Europeans' private searches to "unfamiliar companies" without adequate anonymization or user consent. He also warned that the changes could weaken citizens' privacy, expose business trade secrets, and even endanger national security. The Commission pushed back, emphasizing that its anonymization standards are robust and that Google can refuse data to any firm that demonstrates serious security risks. Moreover, the EU pointed out that users' data is already being collected and used by Google; the regulation merely forces that data to benefit a wider ecosystem. Industry observers note that Google's opposition is consistent with its long-standing resistance to antitrust regulation. The company has previously been fined over €8 billion by the European Commission for various antitrust violations, including a record €4.34 billion penalty in 2018 for forcing manufacturers to pre-install Google services on Android. That case, which is still under appeal, set the stage for the current DMA decisions.
Wider implications of the DMA
The EU's actions are part of a broader push to rein in Big Tech. Under the DMA, which came into full effect in March 2024, the Commission has already ordered Meta to offer an ad-free subscription option to comply with privacy rules, and it has forced Apple to allow alternative app stores and payment systems on iPhones. Regulators are also circling Google's so-called "choice screens" on Android, which let users select a default search engine; critics argue the screens are designed to discourage switching. The DMA's scope extends beyond search and AI to messaging interoperability, advertising transparency, and app store fairness. Companies that fail to comply face fines of up to 10% of global annual turnover, which for Alphabet (Google's parent) would amount to tens of billions of dollars. However, enforcement has not been without controversy. The Trump administration has repeatedly accused the EU of unfairly targeting US technology firms, and the political pressure could shape future actions. Meanwhile, Google appears to have won a longer compliance deadline than Apple. While Google has until July 2027 for Android and January 2027 for search data, Apple must make its Siri AI compliant before its launch in Europe, likely much sooner. This discrepancy has raised eyebrows among competitors, who argue that Google's longer runway gives it an advantage in adapting its business model.
Background on EU tech battles
The EU's battle with Google over Android dominance dates back nearly a decade. In 2016, the Commission charged Google with abusing its dominant position by requiring manufacturers to pre-install Google Search and Chrome as a condition for licensing the Play Store. The resulting 2018 fine of €4.34 billion was the largest ever imposed by the EU at that time. Google has challenged the fine in the European Court of Justice, but the legal process has been slow. In parallel, the EU has also fined Google for anti-competitive practices in online shopping (€2.42 billion in 2017) and advertising (€1.49 billion in 2019). These cases have forced Google to make minor changes, but the company's market share in search (over 90% in many EU countries) remained largely intact. The DMA is seen as a more powerful tool because it imposes ex-ante obligations rather than ex-post fines, meaning companies must proactively comply with rules rather than waiting to be punished. The new decisions on AI assistants and search data are among the first binding specifications under the DMA, setting a precedent for how the law will be enforced. They also highlight the EU's determination to shape the emerging AI ecosystem before it becomes dominated by a few large players. With the likes of OpenAI, Microsoft, and Google racing to deploy generative AI, the Commission is ensuring that European startups have a fair shot at competing.
The decisions are likely to have ripple effects beyond Europe. Other jurisdictions, including the UK, Japan, and even the US, are considering similar legislation to address platform power. The EU's approach, while criticized for its complexity and potential to stifle innovation, offers a concrete blueprint for regulating digital markets. For now, Google must begin the technical work of opening up Android and anonymizing search data, while also preparing its legal defenses. The next few years will test whether the DMA can truly deliver on its promise of fairer competition, or whether it will become another layer of bureaucracy that incumbent firms learn to navigate.
Source:TNW | Android News