Two EU procedures target Google under the DMA
On January 27, 2026, the European Commission opened two specification procedures under the Digital Markets Act, each addressing a distinct DMA obligation. The first, under Article 6(7), requires Google to ensure third parties have “free and effective interoperability” with the Android hardware and software features that Gemini currently uses exclusively. The second, under Article 6(11), would force Google to share anonymized search data with competing search engines and AI providers on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms.
On April 16, the Commission published preliminary conclusions on the data-sharing procedure in a 29-page document that outlines which data should be passed, how it must be anonymized, and the audit regime that would govern it. A public consultation ran until May 1. The Android interoperability process is moving on a parallel timeline, with conclusions said to be imminent.
What this would mean for Android users
Practically speaking, opening Android to rival AI assistants could let any user set ChatGPT or Claude as the system default assistant with the same privileges Gemini has now. That would include voice activation, access to always-on features, and deep integration with apps such as Gmail and Google Calendar — capabilities that competitors currently cannot match.
Brussels’ position is straightforward. A company that controls roughly 65 percent of mobile operating systems in Europe should not be the sole arbiter of which AI speaks to a phone.
The regulatory clock and Google’s Gemini rollout
The timing of the dispute is notable. Google completed the transition from Google Assistant to Gemini on Android devices in March 2026, just as the DMA specification procedures picked up pace. Each software update deepens Gemini’s integration into the ecosystem, complicating regulators’ work as the binding decision deadline approaches.
The Commission must adopt a binding decision by July 27, 2026. If Google fails to comply, the Commission can open a formal investigation that may lead to fines of up to 10 percent of global annual turnover.
Google’s objections and the real risks at stake
Google has pushed back. The company says the measures could “undermine user privacy, security, and innovation,” and argues the proposed data-sharing rules would require ineffective anonymization that increases data volumes and risks user privacy to meet what it calls “unbounded demands from competitors.”
Those concerns are not without merit. Granting any AI provider access to features such as wake-word detection and on-screen content reading broadens the attack surface. How auditors will verify real-world compliance with anonymization obligations remains an open question for Brussels.
There is also a legitimate market tension. OpenAI and Anthropic, the firms most likely to benefit, are for-profit companies with commercial interests comparable to Google’s.
A precedent with global reach
The July decision will not be confined to the EU. The UK Competition and Markets Authority is watching closely, and regulatory pressure in the United States, though less structured, is growing inside Congress.
If Brussels confirms that the Digital Markets Act can require meaningful, not merely formal, opening of Android to rival assistants, it will create a model other regulators could adapt. The real test will be implementation, not the decision itself.
