EU regulators have given Google additional time to address concerns in a Digital Markets Act investigation, after a previous proposal was judged insufficient to meet Brussels’ requirements on competition, business access and user choice.
The European Commission has given Google additional time to respond to EU concerns in an ongoing investigation under the Digital Markets Act, after the company’s previous proposal failed to satisfy regulators.
The case forms part of Brussels’ wider enforcement of the Digital Markets Act, the EU rulebook designed to limit the ability of large technology platforms to use their market position to restrict competitors, business users or consumer choice.
Thomas Regnier, a Commission spokesman, said on Friday that Google was still engaging with regulators but that the solution offered so far was not strong enough. He said the Commission was giving the company more time to propose a remedy that properly addressed concerns in the interest of European businesses and citizens.
The additional time does not close the case. The Commission is still working towards a final decision, which could include a fine if it concludes that Google has breached the DMA. Under the regulation, companies designated as gatekeepers can face penalties of up to 10 per cent of global annual turnover for non-compliance, and up to 20 per cent for repeated infringements.
Google, part of Alphabet, is one of the companies designated by the Commission as a gatekeeper under the DMA. Its designated services include Google Search, Android, Chrome, Google Play, Google Maps, Google Shopping, YouTube and advertising services. The designation means the company is subject to specific obligations intended to prevent self-preferencing, unfair restrictions on business users and barriers to interoperability.
The latest development concerns Google’s attempt to address Commission objections. Brussels has been investigating whether Google’s conduct complies with the DMA in areas including search, online intermediation, access conditions and the treatment of competing services. The Commission has previously raised concerns that Google may favour its own services or impose conditions that limit the ability of competitors to reach users on fair terms.
A related strand of the Commission’s current work concerns interoperability on Android. On 27 April, the Commission opened a consultation on proposed measures requiring Alphabet to ensure that competing artificial intelligence services can interact effectively with apps and functions on Android devices.
The Commission said those measures would address features relevant to AI services. In practical terms, that could involve rival AI assistants being able to perform tasks through a user’s preferred apps, such as sending an email, sharing a photo or ordering food, rather than functions being reserved primarily for Google’s own AI services.
The consultation is not identical to the broader investigation, but it shows the direction of EU enforcement. Brussels is no longer focused only on traditional search rankings, app stores and advertising systems. It is also applying the DMA to the way large platforms integrate artificial intelligence into mobile operating systems and digital ecosystems.
That makes the Google case important beyond a single company. The outcome will help define how far the Commission can require gatekeepers to open core platform functions to rival services, particularly as AI assistants become more closely connected with operating systems, mobile applications and user data.
For business users, the issue is market access. Companies that rely on search visibility, app distribution, advertising systems or Android functionality want predictable and non-discriminatory conditions. For consumers, the Commission frames the case around choice: whether users can select rival services and have them work effectively on devices controlled by a dominant platform.
Google has argued in previous DMA proceedings that some proposed remedies could affect privacy, security, user experience and product quality. Those arguments are likely to remain central as the Commission tests whether changes demanded under the DMA can be implemented without weakening technical safeguards.
The Commission’s decision to give Google more time indicates that Brussels is still seeking a remedy rather than immediately moving to a penalty. However, the wording from the regulator also suggests that the company’s existing offer has not removed the central concerns.
The case comes as EU digital enforcement continues to carry wider political weight. The DMA has become one of the EU’s most visible regulatory tools, and its application to US technology companies has been watched closely in Washington. At the same time, EU officials argue that the regulation is about market conduct rather than nationality, and applies to all designated gatekeepers.
For Google, the next step is to present a revised offer that the Commission considers credible. For Brussels, the challenge is to show that DMA enforcement can produce practical changes in platform behaviour without becoming trapped in prolonged procedural exchanges.
The outcome will be watched by other gatekeepers, rival technology companies and business users across the digital economy. If the Commission accepts a revised remedy, it may set a template for future DMA compliance. If it proceeds towards a fine, the case could become one of the most significant enforcement actions under the EU’s new digital competition regime.
