EU Orders Google to Share Search Data and Open Android AI Access to Competitors

In a clear and explicit pronouncement, the EU has directed Google to share its search data with competing search engines and to enable broader AI interoperability on Android for non‑Google AI assistants.

Google has indicated it seeks a means to roll back these requirements.

The European Commission released two related specifications on Thursday. The first concerns the ability of third‑party AI providers to integrate with Google’s mobile operating system; the second compels Google to provide search data to rival search engines in order to “rebalance the playing field,” as the Commission described it.

The specification proceeding is not a finding of non‑compliance and does not assess whether Google has breached its obligations as a Digital Markets Act gatekeeper, which applies to firms that control market access for smaller competitors. Its purpose was to ensure both parties understand the concrete steps Google must take to reduce its monopoly over search and its control of the OS that powers most smartphones worldwide.

Gemini gets pried loose from Android

“Currently, on Android phones, competitors’ AI assistants only have restricted access to key functionalities,” the EC said. “Today’s decision will ensure that users can activate their preferred AI assistant.”

Specifically, Google will be required to give third‑party AI providers extensive access to Android‑powered devices, including allowing them to be voice‑activated in place of Gemini, and to take actions in apps on the user’s behalf.

Google has protested the move, echoing its usual response to EU competition actions.

“Today’s decisions risk undermining vital privacy and security guardrails for millions of Europeans,” said Google and Alphabet president of global affairs Kent Walker in a statement. “More specifically, the EC’s ruling is unnecessary, as AI assistants already safely access Android’s capabilities where OEMs permit it.”

“This Android ruling threatens device security by granting external apps sensitive and powerful device permissions without OEM safeguards,” Walker added.

The Commission clarified in its AI‑interoperability FAQ that Google and OEMs retain substantial control over implementation. “In view of the sensitive nature of some features, Google may impose objective, non‑discriminatory eligibility conditions to limit access to third parties that meet certain privacy, security and integrity standards,” the EC noted.

An unreasonable search seizure?

The EU expressed concern that Google’s previous attempts to open up search data had been ineffective, prompting the new requirement that rival search engines be able to access Google data to improve their services and compete more effectively.

“Subject to anonymisation, Google should share the same data that it collects to optimise its own search services,” the Commission said, noting that this includes providing AI chatbots with access to that data for service improvement. “The aim of these measures is to allow companies to offer European users a wider and more feature‑rich range of options, both for AI services on Android and for search services.”

Google argued that exposing Europeans’ private searches to unfamiliar companies, without adequate anonymisation and user consent, would weaken privacy, jeopardize trade secrets and endanger national security.

The Chamber of Progress, which receives funding from Google, echoed these concerns, warning that the Commission was ignoring well‑documented privacy risks in pursuit of a top‑down vision of the digital economy. “The likely result is services will be pulled while legal challenges are mounted,” its VP for Europe, Kay Jebelli, said.

The Commission made clear that Google retains final authority over what is shared and outlined detailed anonymisation procedures in an FAQ for the search portion. “The decision … allows Google to assess, before sharing any data, whether sharing such data with a specific third party poses serious cyber‑security and data‑protection risks,” the Commission explained.

Per the FAQ, anonymisation includes suppressing search records that contain rare items (e.g., usernames, passwords, addresses, bank‑account info), generalizing metadata, grouping users into bundles of at least 1 000 people with similar geographic and device data, and removing all direct and indirect identifiers.

Google‑shared data will be available only to eligible beneficiaries with verified investment plans to improve online search services; recipients may not link the data to other datasets, share it further, or use it beyond search‑service improvement. Independent audits are required before and after access, with biennial reviews of the measures to incorporate practical experience and new developments.

Cambridge Analytica redux?

Google’s objections echo those raised when the EU first mandated search‑data sharing in April. Jebelli warned that reliance on contractual privacy safeguards “is the same kind … that led to the Cambridge Analytica scandal,” where Facebook’s data‑sharing practices were exploited to influence elections.

When asked for comment, Google referred to its earlier statement and added counterpoints: the EU specifications lack explicit user consent, require only pseudonymisation rather than full anonymisation, and fail to address risks of AI chatbots ingesting search data. The company also noted that AI assistants already gain distribution on Android through OEM agreements and that granting system‑level access to third‑party AI could create security vulnerabilities for threat actors.

The EU affirmed that Google may defend the decisions through judicial review. If unchanged, Google must comply with the search‑data sharing requirements beginning January 2027, with the AI interoperability provisions taking effect in July 2027. Legal challenges are expected to keep the matter tied up in litigation far beyond those dates. ®

Source link