The European Commission has proposed measures under the Digital Markets Act that would require Google to share search data with qualifying third-party search services, including AI-enabled services with search functions, in a fresh test of how far Brussels is prepared to push practical market-opening remedies in digital competition enforcement.
The European Commission on 16 April set out proposed measures that would require Google to share search-engine data with third-party search services under the Digital Markets Act, marking a new step in the EU’s effort to enforce its digital competition rules against major platform operators.
Under the proposal, Google would have to allow third-party search engines to access search data including ranking, query, click and view data on terms the Commission describes as fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory. The Commission said the purpose was to allow rival search providers to improve their own services and better contest Google Search’s position in the market.
The measures are still at a preliminary stage. The Commission said it had sent preliminary findings to Google and invited interested parties to comment through a public consultation due to open on 17 April.
The proposed framework goes beyond a general request for access. According to the Commission, it covers who should qualify to receive the data, the categories of data Google would need to share, the means and frequency of data transfer, safeguards for anonymising personal data, pricing parameters, and the processes governing access.
One notable element is the scope of possible beneficiaries. The Commission said eligibility could extend not only to conventional search providers but also to artificial-intelligence chatbots with search functionalities. That places the move within a wider contest over how search traffic, discovery tools and AI-assisted interfaces will interact in the next phase of the digital market.
The Digital Markets Act is designed to regulate so-called gatekeepers, defined as large digital platforms providing core platform services such as online search engines, app stores and messaging services. The law gives the Commission sole enforcement authority and is intended to make digital markets fairer and more contestable without relying solely on traditional competition cases.
This latest move is therefore significant less for any immediate operational effect than for what it shows about the Commission’s enforcement approach. Brussels is not limiting itself to broad compliance debates. It is moving into detailed questions of implementation: what data must be shared, in what form, at what price, and under what technical and legal conditions.
That level of detail matters because search data is one of the most commercially valuable inputs in the online economy. Ranking signals, query patterns and click behaviour can influence how search systems are trained, refined and monetised. For smaller search providers, access to that information could improve relevance and service quality. For Google, it raises questions about operational burden, privacy protection, pricing and the boundaries of mandated access. The Commission’s proposal explicitly addresses anonymisation and pricing, indicating that both issues are likely to become central in the next stage of the process.
The inclusion of AI-enabled services is also likely to attract particular attention. As users increasingly turn to conversational tools that incorporate live or near-live search functions, the question of who can access underlying search data has become more consequential. The Commission’s proposal suggests it is already considering how DMA enforcement should apply in that evolving environment, rather than treating search and AI as separate regulatory questions.
No final decision has yet been announced, and the Commission has not set out in the published summary when any eventual binding measures might follow. What it has done is open a formal route for market participants and other interested parties to test the practicality and proportionality of the proposed obligations. The consultation phase will therefore be an important indicator of how far the Commission is prepared to go in translating the DMA’s contestability goals into enforceable technical requirements.
For the wider Brussels policy debate, the case is likely to be watched closely. It touches not only on competition between search providers, but also on the EU’s broader attempt to shape the market conditions in which AI services develop. If the Commission proceeds broadly along the lines now proposed, it would reinforce the message that the DMA is not just a framework for headline investigations, but a tool for compelling concrete data-access remedies in strategically important digital markets.
