EU tells Google to open up Android and share search data. Google is not pleased.
The European Commission has published a pair of specification decisions aimed squarely at Google's grip on search and Android. One requires Google to give third-party AI assistants meaningful access to Android devices. The other compels it to share search data with rival search engines. Neither went down well in Mountain View.
These aren't noncompliance rulings. The Commission was at pains to clarify that this is about spelling out exactly what obligations Google has under the Digital Markets Act as a designated gatekeeper — a company large enough to control market access for smaller players. Think of it less as a punishment and more as a very detailed instruction manual Google apparently needed.
On the Android side, the Commission's core complaint is that competing AI assistants have only limited access to key device functionality. Under the new specifications, third-party assistants must be allowed to respond to voice activation in place of Gemini, and to take actions within apps on a user's behalf. Basically, if you want Google Assistant replaced by something else, Android can no longer quietly obstruct that.
Google's global affairs chief Kent Walker issued the predictable response. He argued the ruling threatens device security by handing external apps sensitive system-level permissions without proper manufacturer safeguards. The Commission's reply was essentially: we already thought of that. Google and device makers retain the right to set objective, non-discriminatory eligibility criteria. Third parties need to meet privacy, security and integrity standards before getting access. This was spelled out in the FAQ, which Walker appears not to have enjoyed reading.
The search data decision has a longer backstory. Google had previously made noises about opening up access to its search data, but the Commission concluded those efforts had gone nowhere useful. So now it wants Google to share the same data it uses to improve its own search products with rival search engines and AI services.
The anonymisation requirements are fairly detailed. Rare search terms that could identify individuals — things like usernames, addresses, financial details — get suppressed. Metadata is generalised. Users are grouped into clusters of at least a thousand people with similar geographic and device profiles. Direct and indirect identifiers are stripped out entirely. Recipients must have verified investment plans to improve search, can only use the data for that purpose, cannot link it to other datasets, cannot pass it on to third parties, and face independent audits before access is granted plus annual audits after. Biennial reviews of the whole framework are also built in.
Walker's objection was that Europeans' private searches would end up exposed to unfamiliar companies without proper anonymisation or user consent, potentially endangering privacy, trade secrets, and national security. The Chamber of Progress — a tech industry group that counts Google among its funders — echoed similar concerns, invoking Cambridge Analytica as a warning about over-reliance on contractual restrictions.
The Cambridge Analytica comparison is worth examining. That situation involved Facebook allowing a third-party developer to hoover up detailed user data through a personality quiz, which was then used for targeted political advertising. The Commission's framework here is rather more constrained — audited access, restricted use cases, no onward sharing. Whether contractual controls alone are sufficient is a fair question, but the analogy requires some stretching.
When pushed for specifics, Google raised a few additional points. There's no explicit user consent mechanism in the specifications. The Commission is asking for pseudonymisation rather than full anonymisation. And Google is worried that handing data access to AI companies like OpenAI creates a pipeline for bulk model training. The Commission's safeguards would technically prevent that, though Google is presumably sceptical about enforcement.
On the Android interoperability side, Google's position is that third-party AI assistants are already gaining ground through manufacturer deals, and that the EU decision bypasses the vetting process that makes those arrangements work. Giving any external AI system-level access to scrape screens is, Google argues, a significant attack surface.
If the Commission gets its way without further legal delays, search data sharing kicks in January 2027 and the Android AI requirements follow in July 2027. Google has a right of defence and judicial review remains available, so the realistic timeline is almost certainly longer. Expect the litigation to outlast several news cycles.